Acute Coronary Syndromes

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiac biomarkers vary according to sex hormones in healthy transgender adults, just as in cisgender individuals, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Previous research in the general population has shown that females have a lower 99th percentile upper reference limit for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) than males, whereas N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are higher in females than males across all ages after puberty.

“That trend is similar for people that have been on gender-affirming hormones, saying that sex hormones are playing a role in how cardiac turnover happens in a healthy state,” study author Dina M. Greene, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Although the number of transgender people seeking gender-affirming care is increasing, studies are limited and largely retrospective cohorts, she noted. The scientific literature evaluating and defining cardiac biomarker concentrations is “currently absent.”

The American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement on the cardiovascular health of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people says mounting evidence points to worse CV health in TGD people and that part of this excess risk is driven by significant psychosocial stressors across the lifespan. “In addition, the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with cardiometabolic changes, but health research in this area remains limited and, at times, contradictory.”

For the present study, Dr. Greene and colleagues reached out to LGBTQ-oriented primary care and internal medicine clinics in Seattle and Iowa City to recruit 79 transgender men prescribed testosterone (mean age, 28.8 years) and 93 transgender women (mean age, 35.1 years) prescribed estradiol for at least 12 months. The mean duration of hormone therapy was 4.8 and 3.5 years, respectively.

The median estradiol concentration was 51 pg/mL in transgender men and 207 pg/mL in transgender women. Median testosterone concentrations were 4.6 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL, respectively.

The cardiac biomarkers were measured with the ARCHITECT STAT (Abbott Diagnostics) and ACCESS (Beckman Coulter) high-sensitivity troponin I assays, the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT assay (Roche Diagnostics), and the Elecsys ProBNP II immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics).

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, the median hs-cTnI level on the ARCHITECT STAT assay was 0.9 ng/L (range, 0.6-1.7) in transgender men and 0.6 ng/L (range, 0.3-1.0) in transgender women. The pattern was consistent across the two other assays.

In contrast, the median NT-proBNP level was 17 ng/L (range, 13-27) in transgender men and 49 ng/L (range, 32-86) in transgender women.

“It seems that sex hormone concentration is a stronger driver of baseline cardiac troponin and NT-proBNP concentrations relative to sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Greene said.

The observed differences in hs-cTn concentrations “are likely physiological and not pathological,” given that concentrations between healthy cisgender people are also apparent and not thought to portend adverse events, the authors noted.

Teasing out the clinical implications of sex-specific hs-cTn upper reference limits for ruling in acute myocardial infarction (MI), however, is complicated by biological and social factors that contribute to poorer outcomes in women, despite lower baseline levels, they added. “Ultimately, the psychosocial benefits of gender-affirming hormones are substantial, and informed consent is likely the ideal method to balance the undetermined risks.”

Dr. Greene pointed out that the study wasn’t powered to accurately calculate gender-specific hs-cTn 99th percentiles or reference intervals for NT-proBNP and assessed the biomarkers at a single time point.

For the transgender person presenting with chest pain, she said, the clinical implications are not yet known, but the data suggest that when sex-specific 99th percentiles for hs-cTn are used, the numeric value associated with the affirmed gender, rather than the sex assigned at birth, may be the appropriate URL.

“It really depends on what the triage pathway is and if that pathway has differences for people of different sexes and how often people get serial measurements,” Dr. Greene said. “Within this population, it’s very important to look at those serial measurements because for people that are not cismen, those 99th percentiles when they’re non–sex specific, are going to favor in detection of a heart attack. So, you need to look at the second value to make sure there hasn’t been a change over time.”

The observed differences in the distribution of NT-proBNP concentrations is similar to that in the cisgender population, Dr. Greene noted. But these differences do not lead to sex-specific diagnostic thresholds because of the significant elevations present in overt heart failure and cardiovascular disease. “For NT-proBNP, it’s not as important. People don’t usually have a little bit of heart failure, they have heart failure, where people have small MIs.”

Dr. Greene said she would like to see larger trials looking at biomarker measurements and cardiac imaging before hormone therapy but that the biggest issue is the need for inclusion of transgender people in all cardiovascular trials.

“The sample sizes are never going to be as big as we get for cisgender people for a number of reasons but ensuring that it’s something that’s being asked on intake and monitored over time so we can understand how transgender people fit into the general population for cardiac disease,” Dr. Greene said. “And so, we can normalize that they exist. I keep driving this point home, but this is the biggest thing right now when it’s such a political issue.”

The study was supported in part by the department of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington, the department of pathology at the University of Iowa, and a grant from Abbott Diagnostics for in-kind high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I reagent. One coauthor reported financial relationships with Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Becton, Dickinson, Abbott Diagnostics, Quidel Diagnostics, Sphingotech, and PixCell Medical. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Cardiac biomarkers vary according to sex hormones in healthy transgender adults, just as in cisgender individuals, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Previous research in the general population has shown that females have a lower 99th percentile upper reference limit for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) than males, whereas N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are higher in females than males across all ages after puberty.

“That trend is similar for people that have been on gender-affirming hormones, saying that sex hormones are playing a role in how cardiac turnover happens in a healthy state,” study author Dina M. Greene, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Although the number of transgender people seeking gender-affirming care is increasing, studies are limited and largely retrospective cohorts, she noted. The scientific literature evaluating and defining cardiac biomarker concentrations is “currently absent.”

The American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement on the cardiovascular health of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people says mounting evidence points to worse CV health in TGD people and that part of this excess risk is driven by significant psychosocial stressors across the lifespan. “In addition, the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with cardiometabolic changes, but health research in this area remains limited and, at times, contradictory.”

For the present study, Dr. Greene and colleagues reached out to LGBTQ-oriented primary care and internal medicine clinics in Seattle and Iowa City to recruit 79 transgender men prescribed testosterone (mean age, 28.8 years) and 93 transgender women (mean age, 35.1 years) prescribed estradiol for at least 12 months. The mean duration of hormone therapy was 4.8 and 3.5 years, respectively.

The median estradiol concentration was 51 pg/mL in transgender men and 207 pg/mL in transgender women. Median testosterone concentrations were 4.6 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL, respectively.

The cardiac biomarkers were measured with the ARCHITECT STAT (Abbott Diagnostics) and ACCESS (Beckman Coulter) high-sensitivity troponin I assays, the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT assay (Roche Diagnostics), and the Elecsys ProBNP II immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics).

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, the median hs-cTnI level on the ARCHITECT STAT assay was 0.9 ng/L (range, 0.6-1.7) in transgender men and 0.6 ng/L (range, 0.3-1.0) in transgender women. The pattern was consistent across the two other assays.

In contrast, the median NT-proBNP level was 17 ng/L (range, 13-27) in transgender men and 49 ng/L (range, 32-86) in transgender women.

“It seems that sex hormone concentration is a stronger driver of baseline cardiac troponin and NT-proBNP concentrations relative to sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Greene said.

The observed differences in hs-cTn concentrations “are likely physiological and not pathological,” given that concentrations between healthy cisgender people are also apparent and not thought to portend adverse events, the authors noted.

Teasing out the clinical implications of sex-specific hs-cTn upper reference limits for ruling in acute myocardial infarction (MI), however, is complicated by biological and social factors that contribute to poorer outcomes in women, despite lower baseline levels, they added. “Ultimately, the psychosocial benefits of gender-affirming hormones are substantial, and informed consent is likely the ideal method to balance the undetermined risks.”

Dr. Greene pointed out that the study wasn’t powered to accurately calculate gender-specific hs-cTn 99th percentiles or reference intervals for NT-proBNP and assessed the biomarkers at a single time point.

For the transgender person presenting with chest pain, she said, the clinical implications are not yet known, but the data suggest that when sex-specific 99th percentiles for hs-cTn are used, the numeric value associated with the affirmed gender, rather than the sex assigned at birth, may be the appropriate URL.

“It really depends on what the triage pathway is and if that pathway has differences for people of different sexes and how often people get serial measurements,” Dr. Greene said. “Within this population, it’s very important to look at those serial measurements because for people that are not cismen, those 99th percentiles when they’re non–sex specific, are going to favor in detection of a heart attack. So, you need to look at the second value to make sure there hasn’t been a change over time.”

The observed differences in the distribution of NT-proBNP concentrations is similar to that in the cisgender population, Dr. Greene noted. But these differences do not lead to sex-specific diagnostic thresholds because of the significant elevations present in overt heart failure and cardiovascular disease. “For NT-proBNP, it’s not as important. People don’t usually have a little bit of heart failure, they have heart failure, where people have small MIs.”

Dr. Greene said she would like to see larger trials looking at biomarker measurements and cardiac imaging before hormone therapy but that the biggest issue is the need for inclusion of transgender people in all cardiovascular trials.

“The sample sizes are never going to be as big as we get for cisgender people for a number of reasons but ensuring that it’s something that’s being asked on intake and monitored over time so we can understand how transgender people fit into the general population for cardiac disease,” Dr. Greene said. “And so, we can normalize that they exist. I keep driving this point home, but this is the biggest thing right now when it’s such a political issue.”

The study was supported in part by the department of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington, the department of pathology at the University of Iowa, and a grant from Abbott Diagnostics for in-kind high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I reagent. One coauthor reported financial relationships with Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Becton, Dickinson, Abbott Diagnostics, Quidel Diagnostics, Sphingotech, and PixCell Medical. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Cardiac biomarkers vary according to sex hormones in healthy transgender adults, just as in cisgender individuals, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Previous research in the general population has shown that females have a lower 99th percentile upper reference limit for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) than males, whereas N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are higher in females than males across all ages after puberty.

“That trend is similar for people that have been on gender-affirming hormones, saying that sex hormones are playing a role in how cardiac turnover happens in a healthy state,” study author Dina M. Greene, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Although the number of transgender people seeking gender-affirming care is increasing, studies are limited and largely retrospective cohorts, she noted. The scientific literature evaluating and defining cardiac biomarker concentrations is “currently absent.”

The American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement on the cardiovascular health of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people says mounting evidence points to worse CV health in TGD people and that part of this excess risk is driven by significant psychosocial stressors across the lifespan. “In addition, the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with cardiometabolic changes, but health research in this area remains limited and, at times, contradictory.”

For the present study, Dr. Greene and colleagues reached out to LGBTQ-oriented primary care and internal medicine clinics in Seattle and Iowa City to recruit 79 transgender men prescribed testosterone (mean age, 28.8 years) and 93 transgender women (mean age, 35.1 years) prescribed estradiol for at least 12 months. The mean duration of hormone therapy was 4.8 and 3.5 years, respectively.

The median estradiol concentration was 51 pg/mL in transgender men and 207 pg/mL in transgender women. Median testosterone concentrations were 4.6 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL, respectively.

The cardiac biomarkers were measured with the ARCHITECT STAT (Abbott Diagnostics) and ACCESS (Beckman Coulter) high-sensitivity troponin I assays, the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT assay (Roche Diagnostics), and the Elecsys ProBNP II immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics).

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, the median hs-cTnI level on the ARCHITECT STAT assay was 0.9 ng/L (range, 0.6-1.7) in transgender men and 0.6 ng/L (range, 0.3-1.0) in transgender women. The pattern was consistent across the two other assays.

In contrast, the median NT-proBNP level was 17 ng/L (range, 13-27) in transgender men and 49 ng/L (range, 32-86) in transgender women.

“It seems that sex hormone concentration is a stronger driver of baseline cardiac troponin and NT-proBNP concentrations relative to sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Greene said.

The observed differences in hs-cTn concentrations “are likely physiological and not pathological,” given that concentrations between healthy cisgender people are also apparent and not thought to portend adverse events, the authors noted.

Teasing out the clinical implications of sex-specific hs-cTn upper reference limits for ruling in acute myocardial infarction (MI), however, is complicated by biological and social factors that contribute to poorer outcomes in women, despite lower baseline levels, they added. “Ultimately, the psychosocial benefits of gender-affirming hormones are substantial, and informed consent is likely the ideal method to balance the undetermined risks.”

Dr. Greene pointed out that the study wasn’t powered to accurately calculate gender-specific hs-cTn 99th percentiles or reference intervals for NT-proBNP and assessed the biomarkers at a single time point.

For the transgender person presenting with chest pain, she said, the clinical implications are not yet known, but the data suggest that when sex-specific 99th percentiles for hs-cTn are used, the numeric value associated with the affirmed gender, rather than the sex assigned at birth, may be the appropriate URL.

“It really depends on what the triage pathway is and if that pathway has differences for people of different sexes and how often people get serial measurements,” Dr. Greene said. “Within this population, it’s very important to look at those serial measurements because for people that are not cismen, those 99th percentiles when they’re non–sex specific, are going to favor in detection of a heart attack. So, you need to look at the second value to make sure there hasn’t been a change over time.”

The observed differences in the distribution of NT-proBNP concentrations is similar to that in the cisgender population, Dr. Greene noted. But these differences do not lead to sex-specific diagnostic thresholds because of the significant elevations present in overt heart failure and cardiovascular disease. “For NT-proBNP, it’s not as important. People don’t usually have a little bit of heart failure, they have heart failure, where people have small MIs.”

Dr. Greene said she would like to see larger trials looking at biomarker measurements and cardiac imaging before hormone therapy but that the biggest issue is the need for inclusion of transgender people in all cardiovascular trials.

“The sample sizes are never going to be as big as we get for cisgender people for a number of reasons but ensuring that it’s something that’s being asked on intake and monitored over time so we can understand how transgender people fit into the general population for cardiac disease,” Dr. Greene said. “And so, we can normalize that they exist. I keep driving this point home, but this is the biggest thing right now when it’s such a political issue.”

The study was supported in part by the department of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington, the department of pathology at the University of Iowa, and a grant from Abbott Diagnostics for in-kind high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I reagent. One coauthor reported financial relationships with Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Becton, Dickinson, Abbott Diagnostics, Quidel Diagnostics, Sphingotech, and PixCell Medical. No other disclosures were reported.

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

The substantial reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality achieved with intensive blood pressure lowering in the landmark SPRINT trial were not sustained in a newly released long-term follow-up.

The loss of the mortality benefits corresponded with a steady climb in the average systolic blood pressures (SBP) in the intensive treatment group after the trial ended. The long-term benefit serves as a call to develop better strategies for sustained SBP control.

“We were disappointed but not surprised that the blood pressure levels in the intensive goal group were not sustained,” acknowledged William C. Cushman, MD, Medical Director, department of preventive medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. “There are many trials showing no residual or legacy effect once the intervention is stopped.”
 

Long-term results do not weaken SPRINT

One of the coinvestigators of this most recent analysis published in JAMA Cardiology and a member of the SPRINT writing committee at the time of its 2015 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Cushman pointed out that the long-term results do not weaken the main trial result. Long-term adherence was not part of the trial design.

“After the trial, we were no longer treating these participants, so it was up to them and their primary care providers to decide on blood pressure goals,” he noted in an interview. Based on the trajectory of benefit when the study was stopped, “it is possible longer intensive treatment may lead to more benefit and some long-term residual benefits.”

The senior author of this most recent analysis, Nicholas M. Pajewski, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics and data science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., generally agreed. However, he pointed out that the most recent data do not rule out meaningful benefit after the study ended.

For one reason, the loss of the SBP advantage was gradual so that median SBP levels of the two groups did not meet for nearly 3 years. This likely explains why there was still an attenuation of CVD mortality for several years after the all-cause mortality benefit was lost, according to Dr. Pajewski.

“It is important to mention that we were not able to assess nonfatal cardiovascular events, so while the two groups do eventually come together, if one thinks about the distinction of healthspan versus lifespan, there was probably residual benefit in terms of delaying CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Pajewski said.
 

In SPRINT, CVD mortality reduced 43%

In the 9,631-patient SPRINT trial, the intensive treatment group achieved a mean SBP of 121.4 mm Hg versus 136.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group at the end of 1 year. The trial was stopped early after 3.26 years because of strength of the benefit in the intensive treatment arm. At that time, the reductions by hazard ratio were 25% (HR, 0.75; P < .001) for a composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) endpoint, 43% for CVD mortality (P = .005), and 27% for all-cause mortality (P = .003).

In the new observational follow-up, mortality data were drawn from the National Death Index, and change in SBP from electronic health records in a subset of 2,944 SPRINT trial participants. Data were available and analyzed through 2020.

The newly published long-term observational analysis showed that the median SBP in the intensive treatment arm was already climbing by the end of the end of the trial. It reached 132.8 mm Hg at 5 years after randomization and then 140.4 mm Hg by 10 years.

This latter figure was essentially equivalent to the SBP among those who were initially randomized to the standard treatment arm.
 

Factors driving rising BP are unclear

There is limited information on what medications were taken by either group following the end of the trial, so the reason for the regression in the intensive treatment arm after leaving the trial is unknown. The authors speculated that this might have been due to therapeutic inertia among treating physicians, poor adherence among patients, the difficulty of keeping blood pressures low in patients with advancing pathology, or some combination of these.

“Perhaps the most important reason was that providers and patients were not aiming for the lower goals since guidelines did not recommend these targets until 2017,” Dr. Cushman pointed out. He noted that Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) “has still not adopted a performance measure goal of less than 140 mm Hg.”

In an accompanying editorial, the authors focused on what these data mean for population-based strategies to achieve sustained control of one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular events. Led by Daniel W. Jones, MD, director of clinical and population science, University of Mississippi, Jackson, the authors of the editorial wrote that these data emphasized “the challenge of achieving sustained intensive BP reductions in the real-world setting.”

Basically, the editorial concluded that current approaches to achieving meaningful and sustained blood pressure control are not working.

This study “should be a wakeup call, but other previously published good data have also been ignored,” said Dr. Jones in an interview. Despite the compelling benefit from intensive blood pressure control the SPRINT trial, the observational follow-up emphasizes the difficulty of maintaining the rigorous reductions in blood pressure needed for sustained protection.

“Systemic change is necessary,” said Dr. Jones, reprising the major thrust of the editorial he wrote with Donald Clark III, MD, and Michael E. Hall, MD, who are both colleagues at the University of Mississippi.

“My view is that health care providers should be held responsible for motivating better compliance of their patients, just as a teacher is accountable for the outcomes of their students,” he said.

The solutions are not likely to be simple. Dr. Jones called for multiple strategies, such as employing telehealth and community health workers to monitor and reinforce blood pressure control, but he said that these and other data have convinced him that “simply trying harder at what we currently do” is not enough.

Dr. Pajewski and Dr. Jones report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cushman reports a financial relationship with ReCor.

The substantial reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality achieved with intensive blood pressure lowering in the landmark SPRINT trial were not sustained in a newly released long-term follow-up.

The loss of the mortality benefits corresponded with a steady climb in the average systolic blood pressures (SBP) in the intensive treatment group after the trial ended. The long-term benefit serves as a call to develop better strategies for sustained SBP control.

“We were disappointed but not surprised that the blood pressure levels in the intensive goal group were not sustained,” acknowledged William C. Cushman, MD, Medical Director, department of preventive medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. “There are many trials showing no residual or legacy effect once the intervention is stopped.”
 

Long-term results do not weaken SPRINT

One of the coinvestigators of this most recent analysis published in JAMA Cardiology and a member of the SPRINT writing committee at the time of its 2015 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Cushman pointed out that the long-term results do not weaken the main trial result. Long-term adherence was not part of the trial design.

“After the trial, we were no longer treating these participants, so it was up to them and their primary care providers to decide on blood pressure goals,” he noted in an interview. Based on the trajectory of benefit when the study was stopped, “it is possible longer intensive treatment may lead to more benefit and some long-term residual benefits.”

The senior author of this most recent analysis, Nicholas M. Pajewski, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics and data science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., generally agreed. However, he pointed out that the most recent data do not rule out meaningful benefit after the study ended.

For one reason, the loss of the SBP advantage was gradual so that median SBP levels of the two groups did not meet for nearly 3 years. This likely explains why there was still an attenuation of CVD mortality for several years after the all-cause mortality benefit was lost, according to Dr. Pajewski.

“It is important to mention that we were not able to assess nonfatal cardiovascular events, so while the two groups do eventually come together, if one thinks about the distinction of healthspan versus lifespan, there was probably residual benefit in terms of delaying CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Pajewski said.
 

In SPRINT, CVD mortality reduced 43%

In the 9,631-patient SPRINT trial, the intensive treatment group achieved a mean SBP of 121.4 mm Hg versus 136.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group at the end of 1 year. The trial was stopped early after 3.26 years because of strength of the benefit in the intensive treatment arm. At that time, the reductions by hazard ratio were 25% (HR, 0.75; P < .001) for a composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) endpoint, 43% for CVD mortality (P = .005), and 27% for all-cause mortality (P = .003).

In the new observational follow-up, mortality data were drawn from the National Death Index, and change in SBP from electronic health records in a subset of 2,944 SPRINT trial participants. Data were available and analyzed through 2020.

The newly published long-term observational analysis showed that the median SBP in the intensive treatment arm was already climbing by the end of the end of the trial. It reached 132.8 mm Hg at 5 years after randomization and then 140.4 mm Hg by 10 years.

This latter figure was essentially equivalent to the SBP among those who were initially randomized to the standard treatment arm.
 

Factors driving rising BP are unclear

There is limited information on what medications were taken by either group following the end of the trial, so the reason for the regression in the intensive treatment arm after leaving the trial is unknown. The authors speculated that this might have been due to therapeutic inertia among treating physicians, poor adherence among patients, the difficulty of keeping blood pressures low in patients with advancing pathology, or some combination of these.

“Perhaps the most important reason was that providers and patients were not aiming for the lower goals since guidelines did not recommend these targets until 2017,” Dr. Cushman pointed out. He noted that Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) “has still not adopted a performance measure goal of less than 140 mm Hg.”

In an accompanying editorial, the authors focused on what these data mean for population-based strategies to achieve sustained control of one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular events. Led by Daniel W. Jones, MD, director of clinical and population science, University of Mississippi, Jackson, the authors of the editorial wrote that these data emphasized “the challenge of achieving sustained intensive BP reductions in the real-world setting.”

Basically, the editorial concluded that current approaches to achieving meaningful and sustained blood pressure control are not working.

This study “should be a wakeup call, but other previously published good data have also been ignored,” said Dr. Jones in an interview. Despite the compelling benefit from intensive blood pressure control the SPRINT trial, the observational follow-up emphasizes the difficulty of maintaining the rigorous reductions in blood pressure needed for sustained protection.

“Systemic change is necessary,” said Dr. Jones, reprising the major thrust of the editorial he wrote with Donald Clark III, MD, and Michael E. Hall, MD, who are both colleagues at the University of Mississippi.

“My view is that health care providers should be held responsible for motivating better compliance of their patients, just as a teacher is accountable for the outcomes of their students,” he said.

The solutions are not likely to be simple. Dr. Jones called for multiple strategies, such as employing telehealth and community health workers to monitor and reinforce blood pressure control, but he said that these and other data have convinced him that “simply trying harder at what we currently do” is not enough.

Dr. Pajewski and Dr. Jones report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cushman reports a financial relationship with ReCor.

The substantial reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality achieved with intensive blood pressure lowering in the landmark SPRINT trial were not sustained in a newly released long-term follow-up.

The loss of the mortality benefits corresponded with a steady climb in the average systolic blood pressures (SBP) in the intensive treatment group after the trial ended. The long-term benefit serves as a call to develop better strategies for sustained SBP control.

“We were disappointed but not surprised that the blood pressure levels in the intensive goal group were not sustained,” acknowledged William C. Cushman, MD, Medical Director, department of preventive medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. “There are many trials showing no residual or legacy effect once the intervention is stopped.”
 

Long-term results do not weaken SPRINT

One of the coinvestigators of this most recent analysis published in JAMA Cardiology and a member of the SPRINT writing committee at the time of its 2015 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Cushman pointed out that the long-term results do not weaken the main trial result. Long-term adherence was not part of the trial design.

“After the trial, we were no longer treating these participants, so it was up to them and their primary care providers to decide on blood pressure goals,” he noted in an interview. Based on the trajectory of benefit when the study was stopped, “it is possible longer intensive treatment may lead to more benefit and some long-term residual benefits.”

The senior author of this most recent analysis, Nicholas M. Pajewski, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics and data science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., generally agreed. However, he pointed out that the most recent data do not rule out meaningful benefit after the study ended.

For one reason, the loss of the SBP advantage was gradual so that median SBP levels of the two groups did not meet for nearly 3 years. This likely explains why there was still an attenuation of CVD mortality for several years after the all-cause mortality benefit was lost, according to Dr. Pajewski.

“It is important to mention that we were not able to assess nonfatal cardiovascular events, so while the two groups do eventually come together, if one thinks about the distinction of healthspan versus lifespan, there was probably residual benefit in terms of delaying CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Pajewski said.
 

In SPRINT, CVD mortality reduced 43%

In the 9,631-patient SPRINT trial, the intensive treatment group achieved a mean SBP of 121.4 mm Hg versus 136.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group at the end of 1 year. The trial was stopped early after 3.26 years because of strength of the benefit in the intensive treatment arm. At that time, the reductions by hazard ratio were 25% (HR, 0.75; P < .001) for a composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) endpoint, 43% for CVD mortality (P = .005), and 27% for all-cause mortality (P = .003).

In the new observational follow-up, mortality data were drawn from the National Death Index, and change in SBP from electronic health records in a subset of 2,944 SPRINT trial participants. Data were available and analyzed through 2020.

The newly published long-term observational analysis showed that the median SBP in the intensive treatment arm was already climbing by the end of the end of the trial. It reached 132.8 mm Hg at 5 years after randomization and then 140.4 mm Hg by 10 years.

This latter figure was essentially equivalent to the SBP among those who were initially randomized to the standard treatment arm.
 

Factors driving rising BP are unclear

There is limited information on what medications were taken by either group following the end of the trial, so the reason for the regression in the intensive treatment arm after leaving the trial is unknown. The authors speculated that this might have been due to therapeutic inertia among treating physicians, poor adherence among patients, the difficulty of keeping blood pressures low in patients with advancing pathology, or some combination of these.

“Perhaps the most important reason was that providers and patients were not aiming for the lower goals since guidelines did not recommend these targets until 2017,” Dr. Cushman pointed out. He noted that Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) “has still not adopted a performance measure goal of less than 140 mm Hg.”

In an accompanying editorial, the authors focused on what these data mean for population-based strategies to achieve sustained control of one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular events. Led by Daniel W. Jones, MD, director of clinical and population science, University of Mississippi, Jackson, the authors of the editorial wrote that these data emphasized “the challenge of achieving sustained intensive BP reductions in the real-world setting.”

Basically, the editorial concluded that current approaches to achieving meaningful and sustained blood pressure control are not working.

This study “should be a wakeup call, but other previously published good data have also been ignored,” said Dr. Jones in an interview. Despite the compelling benefit from intensive blood pressure control the SPRINT trial, the observational follow-up emphasizes the difficulty of maintaining the rigorous reductions in blood pressure needed for sustained protection.

“Systemic change is necessary,” said Dr. Jones, reprising the major thrust of the editorial he wrote with Donald Clark III, MD, and Michael E. Hall, MD, who are both colleagues at the University of Mississippi.

“My view is that health care providers should be held responsible for motivating better compliance of their patients, just as a teacher is accountable for the outcomes of their students,” he said.

The solutions are not likely to be simple. Dr. Jones called for multiple strategies, such as employing telehealth and community health workers to monitor and reinforce blood pressure control, but he said that these and other data have convinced him that “simply trying harder at what we currently do” is not enough.

Dr. Pajewski and Dr. Jones report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cushman reports a financial relationship with ReCor.

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the evaluation and disposition of acute chest pain in the emergency department.

Chest pain accounts for more than 7 million ED visits annually. A major challenge is to quickly identify the small number of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among the large number of patients who have noncardiac conditions.

The new document is intended to provide guidance on how to “practically apply” recommendations from the 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain, focusing specifically on patients who present to the ED, the writing group explains.

“A systematic approach – both at the level of the institution and the individual patient – is essential to achieve optimal outcomes for patients presenting with chest pain to the ED,” say writing group chair Michael Kontos, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

At the institution level, this decision pathway recommends high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays coupled with a clinical decision pathway (CDP) to reduce ED “dwell” times and increase the number of patients with chest pain who can safely be discharged without additional testing. This will decrease ED crowding and limit unnecessary testing, they point out. 

At the individual patient level, this document aims to provide structure for the ED evaluation of chest pain, accelerating the evaluation process and matching the intensity of testing and treatment to patient risk.

The 36-page document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Key summary points in the document include the following:

• Electrocardiogram remains the best initial test for evaluation of chest pain in the ED and should be performed and interpreted within 10 minutes of ED arrival.
• In patients who arrive via ambulance, the prehospital ECG should be reviewed, because ischemic changes may have resolved before ED arrival.
• When the ECG shows evidence of acute infarction or ischemia, subsequent care should follow current guidelines for management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).
• Patients with a nonischemic ECG can enter an accelerated CDP designed to provide rapid risk assessment and exclusion of ACS.
• Patients who are hemodynamically unstable, have significant arrhythmias, or evidence of significant heart failure should be evaluated and treated appropriately and are not candidates for an accelerated CDP.
• High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) are the preferred biomarkers for evaluation of possible ACS.
• Patients classified as low risk (rule out) using the current hs-cTn-based CDPs can generally be discharged directly from the ED without additional testing, although outpatient testing may be considered in selected cases.
• Patients with substantially elevated initial hs-cTn values or those with significant dynamic changes over 1-3 hours are assigned to the abnormal/high-risk category and should be further classified according to the universal definition of myocardial infarction type 1 or 2 or acute or chronic nonischemic cardiac injury.
• High-risk patients should usually be admitted to an inpatient setting for further evaluation and treatment.
• Patients determined to be intermediate risk with the CDP should undergo additional observation with repeat hs-cTn measurements at 3-6 hours and risk assessment using either the modified HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score or the ED assessment of chest pain score (EDACS).
• Noninvasive testing should be considered for the intermediate-risk group unless low-risk features are identified using risk scores or noninvasive testing has been performed recently with normal or low-risk findings.

The writing group notes that “safe and efficient” management of chest pain in the ED requires appropriate follow-up after discharge. Timing of follow-up and referral for outpatient noninvasive testing should be influenced by patient risk and results of cardiac testing.

Disclosures for members of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the evaluation and disposition of acute chest pain in the emergency department.

Chest pain accounts for more than 7 million ED visits annually. A major challenge is to quickly identify the small number of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among the large number of patients who have noncardiac conditions.

The new document is intended to provide guidance on how to “practically apply” recommendations from the 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain, focusing specifically on patients who present to the ED, the writing group explains.

“A systematic approach – both at the level of the institution and the individual patient – is essential to achieve optimal outcomes for patients presenting with chest pain to the ED,” say writing group chair Michael Kontos, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

At the institution level, this decision pathway recommends high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays coupled with a clinical decision pathway (CDP) to reduce ED “dwell” times and increase the number of patients with chest pain who can safely be discharged without additional testing. This will decrease ED crowding and limit unnecessary testing, they point out. 

At the individual patient level, this document aims to provide structure for the ED evaluation of chest pain, accelerating the evaluation process and matching the intensity of testing and treatment to patient risk.

The 36-page document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Key summary points in the document include the following:

• Electrocardiogram remains the best initial test for evaluation of chest pain in the ED and should be performed and interpreted within 10 minutes of ED arrival.
• In patients who arrive via ambulance, the prehospital ECG should be reviewed, because ischemic changes may have resolved before ED arrival.
• When the ECG shows evidence of acute infarction or ischemia, subsequent care should follow current guidelines for management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).
• Patients with a nonischemic ECG can enter an accelerated CDP designed to provide rapid risk assessment and exclusion of ACS.
• Patients who are hemodynamically unstable, have significant arrhythmias, or evidence of significant heart failure should be evaluated and treated appropriately and are not candidates for an accelerated CDP.
• High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) are the preferred biomarkers for evaluation of possible ACS.
• Patients classified as low risk (rule out) using the current hs-cTn-based CDPs can generally be discharged directly from the ED without additional testing, although outpatient testing may be considered in selected cases.
• Patients with substantially elevated initial hs-cTn values or those with significant dynamic changes over 1-3 hours are assigned to the abnormal/high-risk category and should be further classified according to the universal definition of myocardial infarction type 1 or 2 or acute or chronic nonischemic cardiac injury.
• High-risk patients should usually be admitted to an inpatient setting for further evaluation and treatment.
• Patients determined to be intermediate risk with the CDP should undergo additional observation with repeat hs-cTn measurements at 3-6 hours and risk assessment using either the modified HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score or the ED assessment of chest pain score (EDACS).
• Noninvasive testing should be considered for the intermediate-risk group unless low-risk features are identified using risk scores or noninvasive testing has been performed recently with normal or low-risk findings.

The writing group notes that “safe and efficient” management of chest pain in the ED requires appropriate follow-up after discharge. Timing of follow-up and referral for outpatient noninvasive testing should be influenced by patient risk and results of cardiac testing.

Disclosures for members of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the evaluation and disposition of acute chest pain in the emergency department.

Chest pain accounts for more than 7 million ED visits annually. A major challenge is to quickly identify the small number of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among the large number of patients who have noncardiac conditions.

The new document is intended to provide guidance on how to “practically apply” recommendations from the 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain, focusing specifically on patients who present to the ED, the writing group explains.

“A systematic approach – both at the level of the institution and the individual patient – is essential to achieve optimal outcomes for patients presenting with chest pain to the ED,” say writing group chair Michael Kontos, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

At the institution level, this decision pathway recommends high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays coupled with a clinical decision pathway (CDP) to reduce ED “dwell” times and increase the number of patients with chest pain who can safely be discharged without additional testing. This will decrease ED crowding and limit unnecessary testing, they point out. 

At the individual patient level, this document aims to provide structure for the ED evaluation of chest pain, accelerating the evaluation process and matching the intensity of testing and treatment to patient risk.

The 36-page document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Key summary points in the document include the following:

• Electrocardiogram remains the best initial test for evaluation of chest pain in the ED and should be performed and interpreted within 10 minutes of ED arrival.
• In patients who arrive via ambulance, the prehospital ECG should be reviewed, because ischemic changes may have resolved before ED arrival.
• When the ECG shows evidence of acute infarction or ischemia, subsequent care should follow current guidelines for management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).
• Patients with a nonischemic ECG can enter an accelerated CDP designed to provide rapid risk assessment and exclusion of ACS.
• Patients who are hemodynamically unstable, have significant arrhythmias, or evidence of significant heart failure should be evaluated and treated appropriately and are not candidates for an accelerated CDP.
• High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) are the preferred biomarkers for evaluation of possible ACS.
• Patients classified as low risk (rule out) using the current hs-cTn-based CDPs can generally be discharged directly from the ED without additional testing, although outpatient testing may be considered in selected cases.
• Patients with substantially elevated initial hs-cTn values or those with significant dynamic changes over 1-3 hours are assigned to the abnormal/high-risk category and should be further classified according to the universal definition of myocardial infarction type 1 or 2 or acute or chronic nonischemic cardiac injury.
• High-risk patients should usually be admitted to an inpatient setting for further evaluation and treatment.
• Patients determined to be intermediate risk with the CDP should undergo additional observation with repeat hs-cTn measurements at 3-6 hours and risk assessment using either the modified HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score or the ED assessment of chest pain score (EDACS).
• Noninvasive testing should be considered for the intermediate-risk group unless low-risk features are identified using risk scores or noninvasive testing has been performed recently with normal or low-risk findings.

The writing group notes that “safe and efficient” management of chest pain in the ED requires appropriate follow-up after discharge. Timing of follow-up and referral for outpatient noninvasive testing should be influenced by patient risk and results of cardiac testing.

Disclosures for members of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

A recent medical meeting I attended included multiple sessions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), a mere preview, I suspect, of what is to come for both patients and physicians.

I vow not to be a contrarian, but I have concerns. If we’d known how cell phones would permeate nearly every waking moment of our lives, would we have built in more protections from the onset?

Although anyone can see the enormous potential of AI in medicine, harnessing the wonders of it without guarding against the dangers could be paramount to texting and driving. 

A palpable disruption in the common work-a-day human interaction is a given. CEOs who mind the bottom line will seek every opportunity to cut personnel whenever machine learning can deliver. As our dependence on algorithms increases, our need to understand electrocardiogram interpretation and echocardiographic calculations will wane. Subtle case information will go undetected. Nuanced subconscious alerts regarding the patient condition will go unnoticed.

These realities are never reflected in the pronouncements of companies who promote and develop AI.
 

The 2-minute echo

In September 2020, Carolyn Lam, MBBS, PhD, and James Hare, MBA, founders of the AI tech company US2.AI, told Healthcare Transformers that AI advances in echocardiology will turn “a manual process of 30 minutes, 250 clicks, with up to 21% variability among fully trained sonographers analyzing the same exam, into an AI-automated process taking 2 minutes, 1 click, with 0% variability.”

Let’s contrast this 2-minute human-machine interaction with the standard 20- to 30-minute human-to-human echocardiography procedure.

Take Mrs. Smith, for instance. She is referred for echocardiography for shortness of breath. She’s shown to a room and instructed to lie down on a table, where she undergoes a brief AI-directed acquisition of images and then a cheery dismissal from the imaging lab. Medical corporate chief financial officers will salivate at the efficiency, the decrease in cost for personnel, and the sharp increase in put-through for the echo lab schedule.

But what if Mrs. Smith gets a standard 30-minute sonographer-directed exam and the astute echocardiographer notes a left ventricular ejection fraction of 38%. A conversation with the patient reveals that she lost her son a few weeks ago. Upon completion of the study, the patient stands up and then adds, “I hope I can sleep in my bed tonight.” Thinking there may be more to the patient’s insomnia than grief-driven anxiety, the sonographer asks her to explain. “I had to sleep in a chair last night because I couldn’t breathe,” Mrs. Smith replies.

The sonographer reasons correctly that Mrs. Smith is likely a few weeks past an acute coronary syndrome for which she didn’t seek attention and is now in heart failure. The consulting cardiologist is alerted. Mrs. Smith is worked into the office schedule a week earlier than planned, and a costly in-patient stay for acute heart failure or worse is avoided.

Here’s a true-life example (some details have been changed to protect the patient’s identity): Mr. Rodriquez was referred for echocardiography because of dizziness. The sonographer notes significant mitral regurgitation and a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction from moderately impaired to severely reduced. When the sonographer inquires about a fresh bruise over Mr. Rodriguez’s left eye, he replies that he “must have fallen, but can’t remember.” The sonographer also notes runs of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on the echo telemetry, and after a phone call from the echo lab to the ordering physician, Mr. Rodriquez is admitted. Instead of chancing a sudden death at home while awaiting follow-up, he undergoes catheterization and gets an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

These scenarios illustrate that a 2-minute visit for AI-directed acquisition of echocardiogram images will never garner the protections of a conversation with a human. Any attempts at downplaying the importance of these human interactions are misguided.

Sometimes we embrace the latest advances in medicine while failing to tend to the most rudimentary necessities of data analysis and reporting. Catherine M. Otto, MD, director of the heart valve clinic and a professor of cardiology at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, is a fan of the basics.

At the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, she commented on the AI-ENHANCED trial, which used an AI decision support algorithm to identify patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis, which is associated with poor survival if left untreated. She correctly highlighted that while we are discussing the merits of AI-driven assessment of aortic stenosis, we are doing so in an era when many echo interpreters exclude critical information. The vital findings of aortic valve area, Vmax, and ejection fraction are often nowhere to be seen on reports. We should attend to our basic flaws in interpretation and reporting before we shift our focus to AI.
 

Flawed algorithms

Incorrect AI algorithms that are broadly adopted could negatively affect the health of millions.

Perhaps the most unsettling claim is made by causaLens: “Causal AI is the only technology that can reason and make choices like humans do,” the website states. A tantalizing tag line that is categorically untrue.

Our mysterious and complex neurophysiological function of reasoning still eludes understanding, but one thing is certain: medical reasoning originates with listening, seeing, and touching.

As AI infiltrates mainstream medicine, opportunities for hearing, observing, and palpating will be greatly reduced.

Folkert Asselbergs from University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, who has cautioned against overhyping AI, was the discussant for an ESC study on the use of causal AI to improve  cardiovascular risk estimation.

He flashed a slide of a 2019 Science article on racial bias in an algorithm that U.S. health care systems use.  Remedying that bias “would increase the percentage of Black people receiving additional help from 17.7% to 46.5%,” according to the authors.  

Successful integration of AI-driven technology will come only if we build human interaction into every patient encounter.

I hope I don’t live to see the rise of the physician cyborg.

Artificial intelligence could be the greatest boon since the invention of the stethoscope, but it will be our downfall if we stop administering a healthy dose of humanity to every patient encounter.

Melissa Walton-Shirley, MD, is a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tenn., who has retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

A recent medical meeting I attended included multiple sessions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), a mere preview, I suspect, of what is to come for both patients and physicians.

I vow not to be a contrarian, but I have concerns. If we’d known how cell phones would permeate nearly every waking moment of our lives, would we have built in more protections from the onset?

Although anyone can see the enormous potential of AI in medicine, harnessing the wonders of it without guarding against the dangers could be paramount to texting and driving. 

A palpable disruption in the common work-a-day human interaction is a given. CEOs who mind the bottom line will seek every opportunity to cut personnel whenever machine learning can deliver. As our dependence on algorithms increases, our need to understand electrocardiogram interpretation and echocardiographic calculations will wane. Subtle case information will go undetected. Nuanced subconscious alerts regarding the patient condition will go unnoticed.

These realities are never reflected in the pronouncements of companies who promote and develop AI.
 

The 2-minute echo

In September 2020, Carolyn Lam, MBBS, PhD, and James Hare, MBA, founders of the AI tech company US2.AI, told Healthcare Transformers that AI advances in echocardiology will turn “a manual process of 30 minutes, 250 clicks, with up to 21% variability among fully trained sonographers analyzing the same exam, into an AI-automated process taking 2 minutes, 1 click, with 0% variability.”

Let’s contrast this 2-minute human-machine interaction with the standard 20- to 30-minute human-to-human echocardiography procedure.

Take Mrs. Smith, for instance. She is referred for echocardiography for shortness of breath. She’s shown to a room and instructed to lie down on a table, where she undergoes a brief AI-directed acquisition of images and then a cheery dismissal from the imaging lab. Medical corporate chief financial officers will salivate at the efficiency, the decrease in cost for personnel, and the sharp increase in put-through for the echo lab schedule.

But what if Mrs. Smith gets a standard 30-minute sonographer-directed exam and the astute echocardiographer notes a left ventricular ejection fraction of 38%. A conversation with the patient reveals that she lost her son a few weeks ago. Upon completion of the study, the patient stands up and then adds, “I hope I can sleep in my bed tonight.” Thinking there may be more to the patient’s insomnia than grief-driven anxiety, the sonographer asks her to explain. “I had to sleep in a chair last night because I couldn’t breathe,” Mrs. Smith replies.

The sonographer reasons correctly that Mrs. Smith is likely a few weeks past an acute coronary syndrome for which she didn’t seek attention and is now in heart failure. The consulting cardiologist is alerted. Mrs. Smith is worked into the office schedule a week earlier than planned, and a costly in-patient stay for acute heart failure or worse is avoided.

Here’s a true-life example (some details have been changed to protect the patient’s identity): Mr. Rodriquez was referred for echocardiography because of dizziness. The sonographer notes significant mitral regurgitation and a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction from moderately impaired to severely reduced. When the sonographer inquires about a fresh bruise over Mr. Rodriguez’s left eye, he replies that he “must have fallen, but can’t remember.” The sonographer also notes runs of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on the echo telemetry, and after a phone call from the echo lab to the ordering physician, Mr. Rodriquez is admitted. Instead of chancing a sudden death at home while awaiting follow-up, he undergoes catheterization and gets an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

These scenarios illustrate that a 2-minute visit for AI-directed acquisition of echocardiogram images will never garner the protections of a conversation with a human. Any attempts at downplaying the importance of these human interactions are misguided.

Sometimes we embrace the latest advances in medicine while failing to tend to the most rudimentary necessities of data analysis and reporting. Catherine M. Otto, MD, director of the heart valve clinic and a professor of cardiology at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, is a fan of the basics.

At the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, she commented on the AI-ENHANCED trial, which used an AI decision support algorithm to identify patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis, which is associated with poor survival if left untreated. She correctly highlighted that while we are discussing the merits of AI-driven assessment of aortic stenosis, we are doing so in an era when many echo interpreters exclude critical information. The vital findings of aortic valve area, Vmax, and ejection fraction are often nowhere to be seen on reports. We should attend to our basic flaws in interpretation and reporting before we shift our focus to AI.
 

Flawed algorithms

Incorrect AI algorithms that are broadly adopted could negatively affect the health of millions.

Perhaps the most unsettling claim is made by causaLens: “Causal AI is the only technology that can reason and make choices like humans do,” the website states. A tantalizing tag line that is categorically untrue.

Our mysterious and complex neurophysiological function of reasoning still eludes understanding, but one thing is certain: medical reasoning originates with listening, seeing, and touching.

As AI infiltrates mainstream medicine, opportunities for hearing, observing, and palpating will be greatly reduced.

Folkert Asselbergs from University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, who has cautioned against overhyping AI, was the discussant for an ESC study on the use of causal AI to improve  cardiovascular risk estimation.

He flashed a slide of a 2019 Science article on racial bias in an algorithm that U.S. health care systems use.  Remedying that bias “would increase the percentage of Black people receiving additional help from 17.7% to 46.5%,” according to the authors.  

Successful integration of AI-driven technology will come only if we build human interaction into every patient encounter.

I hope I don’t live to see the rise of the physician cyborg.

Artificial intelligence could be the greatest boon since the invention of the stethoscope, but it will be our downfall if we stop administering a healthy dose of humanity to every patient encounter.

Melissa Walton-Shirley, MD, is a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tenn., who has retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

A recent medical meeting I attended included multiple sessions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), a mere preview, I suspect, of what is to come for both patients and physicians.

I vow not to be a contrarian, but I have concerns. If we’d known how cell phones would permeate nearly every waking moment of our lives, would we have built in more protections from the onset?

Although anyone can see the enormous potential of AI in medicine, harnessing the wonders of it without guarding against the dangers could be paramount to texting and driving. 

A palpable disruption in the common work-a-day human interaction is a given. CEOs who mind the bottom line will seek every opportunity to cut personnel whenever machine learning can deliver. As our dependence on algorithms increases, our need to understand electrocardiogram interpretation and echocardiographic calculations will wane. Subtle case information will go undetected. Nuanced subconscious alerts regarding the patient condition will go unnoticed.

These realities are never reflected in the pronouncements of companies who promote and develop AI.
 

The 2-minute echo

In September 2020, Carolyn Lam, MBBS, PhD, and James Hare, MBA, founders of the AI tech company US2.AI, told Healthcare Transformers that AI advances in echocardiology will turn “a manual process of 30 minutes, 250 clicks, with up to 21% variability among fully trained sonographers analyzing the same exam, into an AI-automated process taking 2 minutes, 1 click, with 0% variability.”

Let’s contrast this 2-minute human-machine interaction with the standard 20- to 30-minute human-to-human echocardiography procedure.

Take Mrs. Smith, for instance. She is referred for echocardiography for shortness of breath. She’s shown to a room and instructed to lie down on a table, where she undergoes a brief AI-directed acquisition of images and then a cheery dismissal from the imaging lab. Medical corporate chief financial officers will salivate at the efficiency, the decrease in cost for personnel, and the sharp increase in put-through for the echo lab schedule.

But what if Mrs. Smith gets a standard 30-minute sonographer-directed exam and the astute echocardiographer notes a left ventricular ejection fraction of 38%. A conversation with the patient reveals that she lost her son a few weeks ago. Upon completion of the study, the patient stands up and then adds, “I hope I can sleep in my bed tonight.” Thinking there may be more to the patient’s insomnia than grief-driven anxiety, the sonographer asks her to explain. “I had to sleep in a chair last night because I couldn’t breathe,” Mrs. Smith replies.

The sonographer reasons correctly that Mrs. Smith is likely a few weeks past an acute coronary syndrome for which she didn’t seek attention and is now in heart failure. The consulting cardiologist is alerted. Mrs. Smith is worked into the office schedule a week earlier than planned, and a costly in-patient stay for acute heart failure or worse is avoided.

Here’s a true-life example (some details have been changed to protect the patient’s identity): Mr. Rodriquez was referred for echocardiography because of dizziness. The sonographer notes significant mitral regurgitation and a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction from moderately impaired to severely reduced. When the sonographer inquires about a fresh bruise over Mr. Rodriguez’s left eye, he replies that he “must have fallen, but can’t remember.” The sonographer also notes runs of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on the echo telemetry, and after a phone call from the echo lab to the ordering physician, Mr. Rodriquez is admitted. Instead of chancing a sudden death at home while awaiting follow-up, he undergoes catheterization and gets an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

These scenarios illustrate that a 2-minute visit for AI-directed acquisition of echocardiogram images will never garner the protections of a conversation with a human. Any attempts at downplaying the importance of these human interactions are misguided.

Sometimes we embrace the latest advances in medicine while failing to tend to the most rudimentary necessities of data analysis and reporting. Catherine M. Otto, MD, director of the heart valve clinic and a professor of cardiology at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, is a fan of the basics.

At the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, she commented on the AI-ENHANCED trial, which used an AI decision support algorithm to identify patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis, which is associated with poor survival if left untreated. She correctly highlighted that while we are discussing the merits of AI-driven assessment of aortic stenosis, we are doing so in an era when many echo interpreters exclude critical information. The vital findings of aortic valve area, Vmax, and ejection fraction are often nowhere to be seen on reports. We should attend to our basic flaws in interpretation and reporting before we shift our focus to AI.
 

Flawed algorithms

Incorrect AI algorithms that are broadly adopted could negatively affect the health of millions.

Perhaps the most unsettling claim is made by causaLens: “Causal AI is the only technology that can reason and make choices like humans do,” the website states. A tantalizing tag line that is categorically untrue.

Our mysterious and complex neurophysiological function of reasoning still eludes understanding, but one thing is certain: medical reasoning originates with listening, seeing, and touching.

As AI infiltrates mainstream medicine, opportunities for hearing, observing, and palpating will be greatly reduced.

Folkert Asselbergs from University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, who has cautioned against overhyping AI, was the discussant for an ESC study on the use of causal AI to improve  cardiovascular risk estimation.

He flashed a slide of a 2019 Science article on racial bias in an algorithm that U.S. health care systems use.  Remedying that bias “would increase the percentage of Black people receiving additional help from 17.7% to 46.5%,” according to the authors.  

Successful integration of AI-driven technology will come only if we build human interaction into every patient encounter.

I hope I don’t live to see the rise of the physician cyborg.

Artificial intelligence could be the greatest boon since the invention of the stethoscope, but it will be our downfall if we stop administering a healthy dose of humanity to every patient encounter.

Melissa Walton-Shirley, MD, is a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tenn., who has retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

To be cost effective, compared with metformin, for initial therapy for type 2 diabetes, prices for a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist would have to fall by at least 70% and at least 90%, respectively, according to estimates.

Thinkstock Photos

The study, modeled on U.S. patients, by Jin G. Choi, MD, and colleagues, was published online Oct. 3 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The researchers simulated the lifetime incidence, prevalence, mortality, and costs associated with three different first-line treatment strategies – metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or a GLP-1 agonist – in U.S. patients with untreated type 2 diabetes.

Compared with patients who received initial treatment with metformin, those who received one of the newer drugs had 4.4% to 5.2% lower lifetime rates of congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

However, to be cost-effective at under $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), SGLT2 inhibitors would need to cost less than $5 a day ($1,800 a year), and GLP-1 agonists would have to cost less than $6 a day ($2,100 a year), a lot less than now.

Knowing how expensive these drugs are, “I am not surprised” that the model predicts that the price would have to drop so much to make them cost-effective, compared with first-line treatment with metformin, senior author Neda Laiteerapong, MD, said in an interview.

“But I am disappointed,” she said, because these drugs are very effective, and if the prices were lower, more people could benefit.

“In the interest of improving access to high-quality care in the United States, our study results indicate the need to reduce SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist medication costs substantially for patients with type 2 [diabetes] to improve health outcomes and prevent exacerbating diabetes health disparities,” the researchers conclude.

One way that the newer drugs might be more widely affordable is if the government became involved, possibly by passing a law similar to the Affordable Insulin Now Act, speculated Dr. Laiteerapong, who is associate director at the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy, University of Chicago.
 

‘Current prices too high to encourage first-line adoption’

Guidelines recommend the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as second-line therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes, but it has not been clear if clinical benefits would outweigh costs for use as first-line therapies.

“Although clinical trials have demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of these newer drugs, they are hundreds of times more expensive than other ... diabetes drugs,” the researchers note.

On the other hand, costs may fall in the coming years when these new drugs come off-patent.

The current study was designed to help inform future clinical guidelines.

The researchers created a population simulation model based on the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, Outcomes Model version 2 (UKPDS OM2) for diabetes-related complications and mortality, with added information about hypoglycemic events, quality of life, and U.S. costs. 

The researchers also identified a nationally representative sample of people who would be eligible to start first-line diabetes therapy when their A1c reached 7% for the model. 

Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data (2013-2016), the researchers identified about 7.3 million U.S. adults aged 18 and older with self-reported diabetes or an A1c greater than 6.5% with no reported use of diabetes medications.

Patients were an average age of 55, and 55% were women. They had had diabetes for an average of 4.2 years, and 36% had a history of diabetes complications.

The model projected that patients would have an improved life expectancy of 3.0 and 3.4 months from first-line SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, respectively, compared with initial therapy with metformin due to reduced rates of macrovascular disease.  

“However, the current drug costs would be too high to encourage their adoption as first-line for usual clinical practice,” the researchers report.
 

‘Disparities could remain for decades’

Generic SGLT2 inhibitors could enter the marketplace shortly, because one of two dapagliflozin patents expired in October 2020 and approval for generic alternatives has been sought from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Choi and colleagues note.

However, it could still take decades for medication prices to drop low enough to become affordable, the group cautions. For example, a generic GLP-1 agonist became available in 2017, but costs remain high.

“Without external incentives,” the group writes, “limited access to these drug classes will likely persist (for example, due to higher copays or requirements for prior authorizations), as will further diabetes disparities – for decades into the future – because of differential access to care due to insurance (for example, private vs. public), which often tracks race and ethnicity.”

The study was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Choi was supported by a National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging grant. Dr. Laiteerapong and other co-authors are members of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research at the University of Chicago. Dr. Choi and Dr. Laiteerapong have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

To be cost effective, compared with metformin, for initial therapy for type 2 diabetes, prices for a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist would have to fall by at least 70% and at least 90%, respectively, according to estimates.

Thinkstock Photos

The study, modeled on U.S. patients, by Jin G. Choi, MD, and colleagues, was published online Oct. 3 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The researchers simulated the lifetime incidence, prevalence, mortality, and costs associated with three different first-line treatment strategies – metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or a GLP-1 agonist – in U.S. patients with untreated type 2 diabetes.

Compared with patients who received initial treatment with metformin, those who received one of the newer drugs had 4.4% to 5.2% lower lifetime rates of congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

However, to be cost-effective at under $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), SGLT2 inhibitors would need to cost less than $5 a day ($1,800 a year), and GLP-1 agonists would have to cost less than $6 a day ($2,100 a year), a lot less than now.

Knowing how expensive these drugs are, “I am not surprised” that the model predicts that the price would have to drop so much to make them cost-effective, compared with first-line treatment with metformin, senior author Neda Laiteerapong, MD, said in an interview.

“But I am disappointed,” she said, because these drugs are very effective, and if the prices were lower, more people could benefit.

“In the interest of improving access to high-quality care in the United States, our study results indicate the need to reduce SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist medication costs substantially for patients with type 2 [diabetes] to improve health outcomes and prevent exacerbating diabetes health disparities,” the researchers conclude.

One way that the newer drugs might be more widely affordable is if the government became involved, possibly by passing a law similar to the Affordable Insulin Now Act, speculated Dr. Laiteerapong, who is associate director at the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy, University of Chicago.
 

‘Current prices too high to encourage first-line adoption’

Guidelines recommend the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as second-line therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes, but it has not been clear if clinical benefits would outweigh costs for use as first-line therapies.

“Although clinical trials have demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of these newer drugs, they are hundreds of times more expensive than other ... diabetes drugs,” the researchers note.

On the other hand, costs may fall in the coming years when these new drugs come off-patent.

The current study was designed to help inform future clinical guidelines.

The researchers created a population simulation model based on the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, Outcomes Model version 2 (UKPDS OM2) for diabetes-related complications and mortality, with added information about hypoglycemic events, quality of life, and U.S. costs. 

The researchers also identified a nationally representative sample of people who would be eligible to start first-line diabetes therapy when their A1c reached 7% for the model. 

Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data (2013-2016), the researchers identified about 7.3 million U.S. adults aged 18 and older with self-reported diabetes or an A1c greater than 6.5% with no reported use of diabetes medications.

Patients were an average age of 55, and 55% were women. They had had diabetes for an average of 4.2 years, and 36% had a history of diabetes complications.

The model projected that patients would have an improved life expectancy of 3.0 and 3.4 months from first-line SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, respectively, compared with initial therapy with metformin due to reduced rates of macrovascular disease.  

“However, the current drug costs would be too high to encourage their adoption as first-line for usual clinical practice,” the researchers report.
 

‘Disparities could remain for decades’

Generic SGLT2 inhibitors could enter the marketplace shortly, because one of two dapagliflozin patents expired in October 2020 and approval for generic alternatives has been sought from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Choi and colleagues note.

However, it could still take decades for medication prices to drop low enough to become affordable, the group cautions. For example, a generic GLP-1 agonist became available in 2017, but costs remain high.

“Without external incentives,” the group writes, “limited access to these drug classes will likely persist (for example, due to higher copays or requirements for prior authorizations), as will further diabetes disparities – for decades into the future – because of differential access to care due to insurance (for example, private vs. public), which often tracks race and ethnicity.”

The study was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Choi was supported by a National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging grant. Dr. Laiteerapong and other co-authors are members of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research at the University of Chicago. Dr. Choi and Dr. Laiteerapong have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

To be cost effective, compared with metformin, for initial therapy for type 2 diabetes, prices for a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist would have to fall by at least 70% and at least 90%, respectively, according to estimates.

Thinkstock Photos

The study, modeled on U.S. patients, by Jin G. Choi, MD, and colleagues, was published online Oct. 3 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The researchers simulated the lifetime incidence, prevalence, mortality, and costs associated with three different first-line treatment strategies – metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or a GLP-1 agonist – in U.S. patients with untreated type 2 diabetes.

Compared with patients who received initial treatment with metformin, those who received one of the newer drugs had 4.4% to 5.2% lower lifetime rates of congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

However, to be cost-effective at under $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), SGLT2 inhibitors would need to cost less than $5 a day ($1,800 a year), and GLP-1 agonists would have to cost less than $6 a day ($2,100 a year), a lot less than now.

Knowing how expensive these drugs are, “I am not surprised” that the model predicts that the price would have to drop so much to make them cost-effective, compared with first-line treatment with metformin, senior author Neda Laiteerapong, MD, said in an interview.

“But I am disappointed,” she said, because these drugs are very effective, and if the prices were lower, more people could benefit.

“In the interest of improving access to high-quality care in the United States, our study results indicate the need to reduce SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist medication costs substantially for patients with type 2 [diabetes] to improve health outcomes and prevent exacerbating diabetes health disparities,” the researchers conclude.

One way that the newer drugs might be more widely affordable is if the government became involved, possibly by passing a law similar to the Affordable Insulin Now Act, speculated Dr. Laiteerapong, who is associate director at the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy, University of Chicago.
 

‘Current prices too high to encourage first-line adoption’

Guidelines recommend the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as second-line therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes, but it has not been clear if clinical benefits would outweigh costs for use as first-line therapies.

“Although clinical trials have demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of these newer drugs, they are hundreds of times more expensive than other ... diabetes drugs,” the researchers note.

On the other hand, costs may fall in the coming years when these new drugs come off-patent.

The current study was designed to help inform future clinical guidelines.

The researchers created a population simulation model based on the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, Outcomes Model version 2 (UKPDS OM2) for diabetes-related complications and mortality, with added information about hypoglycemic events, quality of life, and U.S. costs. 

The researchers also identified a nationally representative sample of people who would be eligible to start first-line diabetes therapy when their A1c reached 7% for the model. 

Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data (2013-2016), the researchers identified about 7.3 million U.S. adults aged 18 and older with self-reported diabetes or an A1c greater than 6.5% with no reported use of diabetes medications.

Patients were an average age of 55, and 55% were women. They had had diabetes for an average of 4.2 years, and 36% had a history of diabetes complications.

The model projected that patients would have an improved life expectancy of 3.0 and 3.4 months from first-line SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, respectively, compared with initial therapy with metformin due to reduced rates of macrovascular disease.  

“However, the current drug costs would be too high to encourage their adoption as first-line for usual clinical practice,” the researchers report.
 

‘Disparities could remain for decades’

Generic SGLT2 inhibitors could enter the marketplace shortly, because one of two dapagliflozin patents expired in October 2020 and approval for generic alternatives has been sought from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Choi and colleagues note.

However, it could still take decades for medication prices to drop low enough to become affordable, the group cautions. For example, a generic GLP-1 agonist became available in 2017, but costs remain high.

“Without external incentives,” the group writes, “limited access to these drug classes will likely persist (for example, due to higher copays or requirements for prior authorizations), as will further diabetes disparities – for decades into the future – because of differential access to care due to insurance (for example, private vs. public), which often tracks race and ethnicity.”

The study was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Choi was supported by a National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging grant. Dr. Laiteerapong and other co-authors are members of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research at the University of Chicago. Dr. Choi and Dr. Laiteerapong have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Shortening the duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and continuing with a P2Y12 inhibitor alone after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was associated with a similar rate of ischemic events but with less bleeding than prolonged DAPT after 3 years of follow-up in the SMART-CHOICE trial.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of an aspirin dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” the investigators, with lead author Ki Hong Choi, MD, division of cardiology, department of medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, conclude.

The 3-year results from the study were published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The authors explain that although dual therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI with a drug-eluting stent (DES) is crucial to reduce the risk of ischemic events, it raises concerns about increased risk of bleeding, and the antiplatelet strategy after PCI is currently shifting to reduce the duration of DAPT.

Several recent randomized studies have consistently shown that a short duration of DAPT (1-3 months) followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy had ischemia protection effects comparable with that of DAPT of longer duration, and it was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding events in patients who underwent PCI, they note. However, these studies have so far reported only 1-year outcomes, and long-term results are not yet available.

The SMART-CHOICE trial compared two antiplatelet strategies – 3 months of DAPT followed by long-term P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (mainly with clopidogrel) or prolonged DAPT for 12 months or longer – in 2,993 patients who had undergone PCI with a drug-eluting stent. Results at 12 months showed a similar rate of ischemic events with both strategies but a lower rate of bleeding in the group that received shortened DAPT.

The SMART-CHOICE investigators now report the 3-year results showing similar outcomes.

At 3 years, the primary endpoint, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, had occurred in 6.3% of the shortened DAPT group and 6.1% in the prolonged DAPT group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.44).

But in the shortened DAPT group, the risk of bleeding was reduced. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2-5 bleeding had occurred in 3.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 8.2% of the prolonged DAPT group (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55). Major bleeding, BARC types 3-5, occurred in 1.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 2.4% of the prolonged DAPT group (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.31-0.99).

The landmark analyses between 3 months and 3 years and per-protocol analyses showed consistent results.

The researchers point out that this is the first trial to report on the long-term safety and efficacy of P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy as long-term maintenance therapy for stable patients treated with PCI.

“Especially considering that extended DAPT significantly reduced the risks of ischemic events compared with aspirin monotherapy in a couple of trials, comparison between P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy and prolonged DAPT for recurrent ischemic events over a longer period beyond 1 year is of great importance,” they say.

They cite two other trials – HOST-EXAM and GLOBAL LEADERS – which have shown P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy to be superior to aspirin monotherapy in preventing both ischemic and bleeding events during the long-term maintenance period after PCI.

“Combining the results of the current study, HOST-EXAM trial, and landmark analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, long-term P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy after a minimum period of DAPT might be the most reliable option from among aspirin monotherapy, P2Y12 monotherapy, and extended DAPT for maintenance therapy after stabilizing patients who have undergone PCI with a current-generation DES,” they conclude.

They note that the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines for coronary artery revascularization newly recommends a shorter course of DAPT followed by P2Y12 monotherapy as a class IIa indication. The recommendation is based on results of five large, randomized clinical trials, including SMART-CHOICE, TWILIGHT, STOPDAPT-2, TICO, and GLOBAL LEADERS.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of aspirin-dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” they say.

They point out that two further trials, A-CLOSE in high-risk patients and SMART-CHOICE III, will be helpful to confirm these findings.
 

P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy ‘attractive concept’

In an accompanying editor’s note, Ajay Kirtane, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, note that current guidelines recommend 3-6 months of DAPT following PCI with current-generation drug-eluting stents in stable patients and 6-12 months or longer for those with acute coronary syndromes. For patients at higher risk of bleeding, even shorter DAPT durations can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Historically, the component of DAPT subject to discontinuation decisions was the P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor), but more recent trials have further explored whether discontinuation of the aspirin component of DAPT can mitigate bleeding while preserving anti-ischemic efficacy.

The editorialists explain that the concept of P2Y1-inhibitor monotherapy is attractive because it may optimize antiplatelet effects through a single agent that can avoid the gastrointestinal toxicity of aspirin as well as the increased bleeding that comes with combing multiple antithrombotic agents.

They suggest that the long-term results from the SMART-CHOICE trial “should lead clinicians to consider a strategy of monotherapy after a short period of DAPT as a viable one to mitigate bleeding risk,” although they also point out that SMART-CHOICE was underpowered to rigorously assess ischemic differences, so caution is warranted.

“For patients at greatest risk for recurrent ischemic events, the role of continued DAPT is always an option, but these data (and other consistent trials) give clinicians more options to pursue individualized treatment decisions,” they write.

“To some, the continually moving field of post-PCI antiplatelet therapy has provided too many choices, which can at times be dizzying. To us, every patient is different, and thoughtful evidence-based consideration is increasingly possible for many of our treatment decisions,” they conclude.

The SMART-CHOICE study was supported by unrestricted grants from the Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific.

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

Shortening the duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and continuing with a P2Y12 inhibitor alone after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was associated with a similar rate of ischemic events but with less bleeding than prolonged DAPT after 3 years of follow-up in the SMART-CHOICE trial.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of an aspirin dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” the investigators, with lead author Ki Hong Choi, MD, division of cardiology, department of medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, conclude.

The 3-year results from the study were published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The authors explain that although dual therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI with a drug-eluting stent (DES) is crucial to reduce the risk of ischemic events, it raises concerns about increased risk of bleeding, and the antiplatelet strategy after PCI is currently shifting to reduce the duration of DAPT.

Several recent randomized studies have consistently shown that a short duration of DAPT (1-3 months) followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy had ischemia protection effects comparable with that of DAPT of longer duration, and it was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding events in patients who underwent PCI, they note. However, these studies have so far reported only 1-year outcomes, and long-term results are not yet available.

The SMART-CHOICE trial compared two antiplatelet strategies – 3 months of DAPT followed by long-term P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (mainly with clopidogrel) or prolonged DAPT for 12 months or longer – in 2,993 patients who had undergone PCI with a drug-eluting stent. Results at 12 months showed a similar rate of ischemic events with both strategies but a lower rate of bleeding in the group that received shortened DAPT.

The SMART-CHOICE investigators now report the 3-year results showing similar outcomes.

At 3 years, the primary endpoint, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, had occurred in 6.3% of the shortened DAPT group and 6.1% in the prolonged DAPT group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.44).

But in the shortened DAPT group, the risk of bleeding was reduced. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2-5 bleeding had occurred in 3.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 8.2% of the prolonged DAPT group (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55). Major bleeding, BARC types 3-5, occurred in 1.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 2.4% of the prolonged DAPT group (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.31-0.99).

The landmark analyses between 3 months and 3 years and per-protocol analyses showed consistent results.

The researchers point out that this is the first trial to report on the long-term safety and efficacy of P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy as long-term maintenance therapy for stable patients treated with PCI.

“Especially considering that extended DAPT significantly reduced the risks of ischemic events compared with aspirin monotherapy in a couple of trials, comparison between P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy and prolonged DAPT for recurrent ischemic events over a longer period beyond 1 year is of great importance,” they say.

They cite two other trials – HOST-EXAM and GLOBAL LEADERS – which have shown P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy to be superior to aspirin monotherapy in preventing both ischemic and bleeding events during the long-term maintenance period after PCI.

“Combining the results of the current study, HOST-EXAM trial, and landmark analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, long-term P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy after a minimum period of DAPT might be the most reliable option from among aspirin monotherapy, P2Y12 monotherapy, and extended DAPT for maintenance therapy after stabilizing patients who have undergone PCI with a current-generation DES,” they conclude.

They note that the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines for coronary artery revascularization newly recommends a shorter course of DAPT followed by P2Y12 monotherapy as a class IIa indication. The recommendation is based on results of five large, randomized clinical trials, including SMART-CHOICE, TWILIGHT, STOPDAPT-2, TICO, and GLOBAL LEADERS.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of aspirin-dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” they say.

They point out that two further trials, A-CLOSE in high-risk patients and SMART-CHOICE III, will be helpful to confirm these findings.
 

P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy ‘attractive concept’

In an accompanying editor’s note, Ajay Kirtane, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, note that current guidelines recommend 3-6 months of DAPT following PCI with current-generation drug-eluting stents in stable patients and 6-12 months or longer for those with acute coronary syndromes. For patients at higher risk of bleeding, even shorter DAPT durations can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Historically, the component of DAPT subject to discontinuation decisions was the P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor), but more recent trials have further explored whether discontinuation of the aspirin component of DAPT can mitigate bleeding while preserving anti-ischemic efficacy.

The editorialists explain that the concept of P2Y1-inhibitor monotherapy is attractive because it may optimize antiplatelet effects through a single agent that can avoid the gastrointestinal toxicity of aspirin as well as the increased bleeding that comes with combing multiple antithrombotic agents.

They suggest that the long-term results from the SMART-CHOICE trial “should lead clinicians to consider a strategy of monotherapy after a short period of DAPT as a viable one to mitigate bleeding risk,” although they also point out that SMART-CHOICE was underpowered to rigorously assess ischemic differences, so caution is warranted.

“For patients at greatest risk for recurrent ischemic events, the role of continued DAPT is always an option, but these data (and other consistent trials) give clinicians more options to pursue individualized treatment decisions,” they write.

“To some, the continually moving field of post-PCI antiplatelet therapy has provided too many choices, which can at times be dizzying. To us, every patient is different, and thoughtful evidence-based consideration is increasingly possible for many of our treatment decisions,” they conclude.

The SMART-CHOICE study was supported by unrestricted grants from the Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific.

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

Shortening the duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and continuing with a P2Y12 inhibitor alone after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was associated with a similar rate of ischemic events but with less bleeding than prolonged DAPT after 3 years of follow-up in the SMART-CHOICE trial.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of an aspirin dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” the investigators, with lead author Ki Hong Choi, MD, division of cardiology, department of medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, conclude.

The 3-year results from the study were published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The authors explain that although dual therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI with a drug-eluting stent (DES) is crucial to reduce the risk of ischemic events, it raises concerns about increased risk of bleeding, and the antiplatelet strategy after PCI is currently shifting to reduce the duration of DAPT.

Several recent randomized studies have consistently shown that a short duration of DAPT (1-3 months) followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy had ischemia protection effects comparable with that of DAPT of longer duration, and it was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding events in patients who underwent PCI, they note. However, these studies have so far reported only 1-year outcomes, and long-term results are not yet available.

The SMART-CHOICE trial compared two antiplatelet strategies – 3 months of DAPT followed by long-term P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (mainly with clopidogrel) or prolonged DAPT for 12 months or longer – in 2,993 patients who had undergone PCI with a drug-eluting stent. Results at 12 months showed a similar rate of ischemic events with both strategies but a lower rate of bleeding in the group that received shortened DAPT.

The SMART-CHOICE investigators now report the 3-year results showing similar outcomes.

At 3 years, the primary endpoint, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, had occurred in 6.3% of the shortened DAPT group and 6.1% in the prolonged DAPT group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.44).

But in the shortened DAPT group, the risk of bleeding was reduced. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2-5 bleeding had occurred in 3.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 8.2% of the prolonged DAPT group (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55). Major bleeding, BARC types 3-5, occurred in 1.2% of the shortened DAPT group and in 2.4% of the prolonged DAPT group (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.31-0.99).

The landmark analyses between 3 months and 3 years and per-protocol analyses showed consistent results.

The researchers point out that this is the first trial to report on the long-term safety and efficacy of P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy as long-term maintenance therapy for stable patients treated with PCI.

“Especially considering that extended DAPT significantly reduced the risks of ischemic events compared with aspirin monotherapy in a couple of trials, comparison between P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy and prolonged DAPT for recurrent ischemic events over a longer period beyond 1 year is of great importance,” they say.

They cite two other trials – HOST-EXAM and GLOBAL LEADERS – which have shown P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy to be superior to aspirin monotherapy in preventing both ischemic and bleeding events during the long-term maintenance period after PCI.

“Combining the results of the current study, HOST-EXAM trial, and landmark analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, long-term P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy after a minimum period of DAPT might be the most reliable option from among aspirin monotherapy, P2Y12 monotherapy, and extended DAPT for maintenance therapy after stabilizing patients who have undergone PCI with a current-generation DES,” they conclude.

They note that the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines for coronary artery revascularization newly recommends a shorter course of DAPT followed by P2Y12 monotherapy as a class IIa indication. The recommendation is based on results of five large, randomized clinical trials, including SMART-CHOICE, TWILIGHT, STOPDAPT-2, TICO, and GLOBAL LEADERS.

“The current results of extended follow-up from the SMART-CHOICE trial support evidence of aspirin-dropping strategy with indefinite use of P2Y12 inhibitor after minimum use of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI,” they say.

They point out that two further trials, A-CLOSE in high-risk patients and SMART-CHOICE III, will be helpful to confirm these findings.
 

P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy ‘attractive concept’

In an accompanying editor’s note, Ajay Kirtane, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, note that current guidelines recommend 3-6 months of DAPT following PCI with current-generation drug-eluting stents in stable patients and 6-12 months or longer for those with acute coronary syndromes. For patients at higher risk of bleeding, even shorter DAPT durations can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Historically, the component of DAPT subject to discontinuation decisions was the P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor), but more recent trials have further explored whether discontinuation of the aspirin component of DAPT can mitigate bleeding while preserving anti-ischemic efficacy.

The editorialists explain that the concept of P2Y1-inhibitor monotherapy is attractive because it may optimize antiplatelet effects through a single agent that can avoid the gastrointestinal toxicity of aspirin as well as the increased bleeding that comes with combing multiple antithrombotic agents.

They suggest that the long-term results from the SMART-CHOICE trial “should lead clinicians to consider a strategy of monotherapy after a short period of DAPT as a viable one to mitigate bleeding risk,” although they also point out that SMART-CHOICE was underpowered to rigorously assess ischemic differences, so caution is warranted.

“For patients at greatest risk for recurrent ischemic events, the role of continued DAPT is always an option, but these data (and other consistent trials) give clinicians more options to pursue individualized treatment decisions,” they write.

“To some, the continually moving field of post-PCI antiplatelet therapy has provided too many choices, which can at times be dizzying. To us, every patient is different, and thoughtful evidence-based consideration is increasingly possible for many of our treatment decisions,” they conclude.

The SMART-CHOICE study was supported by unrestricted grants from the Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific.

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

In 2002, two landmark trials found that targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led to improvements in neurologic outcomes. The larger of the two trials found a reduction in mortality. Such treatment benefits are hard to come by in critical care in general and in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in particular. With the therapeutic overconfidence typical of our profession, my institution embraced TTM quickly and completely soon after these trials were published. Remember, this was “back in the day” when sepsis management included drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control (90-120 mg/dL), and horrible over-resuscitation via the early goal-directed therapy paradigm.

If you’ve been practicing critical care medicine for more than a few years, you already know where I’m going. Most of the interventions in the preceding paragraph were adopted but discarded before 2010. Though TTM has managed to stand the test of time, our confidence in its benefit has waned since 2002. Hypothermia – temperature management with a goal of 32-36° C – has been struggling to stay relevant ever since the publication of the TTM randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2013. Then came the HYPERION trial, which brought the 32-36° C target back from the dead (pun definitely intended) in 2019. This is critical care medicine: Today’s life-saving intervention proves harmful tomorrow, but withholding it may constitute malpractice a few months down the road.

So where are we now? Good question. I’ve had seasoned neurointensivists insist that 33° C remains the standard of care and others who’ve endorsed normothermia. So much for finding an answer via my more specialized colleagues.

Let’s go to the guidelines then. Prompted largely by HYPERION, a temperature target of 32-36° C was endorsed in 2020 and 2021. Then came publication of the TTM2 trial, the largest temperature management RCT to date, which found no benefit to targeting 33° C. A network meta-analysis published in 2021 reached a similar conclusion. A recently released update by the same international guideline group now recommends targeting normothermia (< 37.7° C) and avoiding fever, and it specifically says that there is insufficient evidence to support a 32-36° C target. Okay, everyone tracking all that?

Lest I sound overly catty and nihilistic, I see all this in a positive light. Huge credit goes to the critical care medicine academic community for putting together so many RCTs. The scientific reality is that it takes “a lotta” sample size to clarify the effects of an intervention. Throw in the inevitable bevy of confounders (in- vs. out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, resuscitation time, initial rhythm, and so on), and you get a feel for the work required to understand a treatment’s true effects.

Advances in guideline science and the hard, often unpaid work of panels are also important. The guideline panel I’ve been citing came out for aggressive temperature control (32-36° C) a few months before the TTM2 RCT was published. In the past, they updated their recommendations every 5 years, but this time, they were out with a new manuscript that incorporated TTM2 in less than a year. If you’ve been involved at any level with producing guidelines, you can appreciate this achievement. Assuming that aggressive hypothermia is truly harmful, waiting 5 years to incorporate TTM2 could have led to significant morbidity.

I do take issue with you early adopters, though. Given the litany of failed therapies that have shown initial promise, and the well-documented human tendency to underestimate the impact of sample size, your rapid implementation of major interventions is puzzling. One might think you’d learned your lessons after seeing drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control, early goal-directed therapy, and aggressive TTM come and go. Your recent enthusiasm for vitamin C after publication of a single before-after study suggests that you haven’t.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel.

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

In 2002, two landmark trials found that targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led to improvements in neurologic outcomes. The larger of the two trials found a reduction in mortality. Such treatment benefits are hard to come by in critical care in general and in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in particular. With the therapeutic overconfidence typical of our profession, my institution embraced TTM quickly and completely soon after these trials were published. Remember, this was “back in the day” when sepsis management included drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control (90-120 mg/dL), and horrible over-resuscitation via the early goal-directed therapy paradigm.

If you’ve been practicing critical care medicine for more than a few years, you already know where I’m going. Most of the interventions in the preceding paragraph were adopted but discarded before 2010. Though TTM has managed to stand the test of time, our confidence in its benefit has waned since 2002. Hypothermia – temperature management with a goal of 32-36° C – has been struggling to stay relevant ever since the publication of the TTM randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2013. Then came the HYPERION trial, which brought the 32-36° C target back from the dead (pun definitely intended) in 2019. This is critical care medicine: Today’s life-saving intervention proves harmful tomorrow, but withholding it may constitute malpractice a few months down the road.

So where are we now? Good question. I’ve had seasoned neurointensivists insist that 33° C remains the standard of care and others who’ve endorsed normothermia. So much for finding an answer via my more specialized colleagues.

Let’s go to the guidelines then. Prompted largely by HYPERION, a temperature target of 32-36° C was endorsed in 2020 and 2021. Then came publication of the TTM2 trial, the largest temperature management RCT to date, which found no benefit to targeting 33° C. A network meta-analysis published in 2021 reached a similar conclusion. A recently released update by the same international guideline group now recommends targeting normothermia (< 37.7° C) and avoiding fever, and it specifically says that there is insufficient evidence to support a 32-36° C target. Okay, everyone tracking all that?

Lest I sound overly catty and nihilistic, I see all this in a positive light. Huge credit goes to the critical care medicine academic community for putting together so many RCTs. The scientific reality is that it takes “a lotta” sample size to clarify the effects of an intervention. Throw in the inevitable bevy of confounders (in- vs. out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, resuscitation time, initial rhythm, and so on), and you get a feel for the work required to understand a treatment’s true effects.

Advances in guideline science and the hard, often unpaid work of panels are also important. The guideline panel I’ve been citing came out for aggressive temperature control (32-36° C) a few months before the TTM2 RCT was published. In the past, they updated their recommendations every 5 years, but this time, they were out with a new manuscript that incorporated TTM2 in less than a year. If you’ve been involved at any level with producing guidelines, you can appreciate this achievement. Assuming that aggressive hypothermia is truly harmful, waiting 5 years to incorporate TTM2 could have led to significant morbidity.

I do take issue with you early adopters, though. Given the litany of failed therapies that have shown initial promise, and the well-documented human tendency to underestimate the impact of sample size, your rapid implementation of major interventions is puzzling. One might think you’d learned your lessons after seeing drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control, early goal-directed therapy, and aggressive TTM come and go. Your recent enthusiasm for vitamin C after publication of a single before-after study suggests that you haven’t.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel.

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

In 2002, two landmark trials found that targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led to improvements in neurologic outcomes. The larger of the two trials found a reduction in mortality. Such treatment benefits are hard to come by in critical care in general and in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in particular. With the therapeutic overconfidence typical of our profession, my institution embraced TTM quickly and completely soon after these trials were published. Remember, this was “back in the day” when sepsis management included drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control (90-120 mg/dL), and horrible over-resuscitation via the early goal-directed therapy paradigm.

If you’ve been practicing critical care medicine for more than a few years, you already know where I’m going. Most of the interventions in the preceding paragraph were adopted but discarded before 2010. Though TTM has managed to stand the test of time, our confidence in its benefit has waned since 2002. Hypothermia – temperature management with a goal of 32-36° C – has been struggling to stay relevant ever since the publication of the TTM randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2013. Then came the HYPERION trial, which brought the 32-36° C target back from the dead (pun definitely intended) in 2019. This is critical care medicine: Today’s life-saving intervention proves harmful tomorrow, but withholding it may constitute malpractice a few months down the road.

So where are we now? Good question. I’ve had seasoned neurointensivists insist that 33° C remains the standard of care and others who’ve endorsed normothermia. So much for finding an answer via my more specialized colleagues.

Let’s go to the guidelines then. Prompted largely by HYPERION, a temperature target of 32-36° C was endorsed in 2020 and 2021. Then came publication of the TTM2 trial, the largest temperature management RCT to date, which found no benefit to targeting 33° C. A network meta-analysis published in 2021 reached a similar conclusion. A recently released update by the same international guideline group now recommends targeting normothermia (< 37.7° C) and avoiding fever, and it specifically says that there is insufficient evidence to support a 32-36° C target. Okay, everyone tracking all that?

Lest I sound overly catty and nihilistic, I see all this in a positive light. Huge credit goes to the critical care medicine academic community for putting together so many RCTs. The scientific reality is that it takes “a lotta” sample size to clarify the effects of an intervention. Throw in the inevitable bevy of confounders (in- vs. out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, resuscitation time, initial rhythm, and so on), and you get a feel for the work required to understand a treatment’s true effects.

Advances in guideline science and the hard, often unpaid work of panels are also important. The guideline panel I’ve been citing came out for aggressive temperature control (32-36° C) a few months before the TTM2 RCT was published. In the past, they updated their recommendations every 5 years, but this time, they were out with a new manuscript that incorporated TTM2 in less than a year. If you’ve been involved at any level with producing guidelines, you can appreciate this achievement. Assuming that aggressive hypothermia is truly harmful, waiting 5 years to incorporate TTM2 could have led to significant morbidity.

I do take issue with you early adopters, though. Given the litany of failed therapies that have shown initial promise, and the well-documented human tendency to underestimate the impact of sample size, your rapid implementation of major interventions is puzzling. One might think you’d learned your lessons after seeing drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control, early goal-directed therapy, and aggressive TTM come and go. Your recent enthusiasm for vitamin C after publication of a single before-after study suggests that you haven’t.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

BOSTON – Despite a promising start, extended follow-up from the SUGAR trial found that the Cre8 EVO drug-eluting stent could not maintain superiority over the Resolute Onyx DES at 2 years in patients with diabetes undergoing revascularization for coronary artery disease.

The Cre8 EVO stent (Alvimedica) is not available in the United States but, as previously reported, caused a stir last year after demonstrating a 35% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year in a prespecified superiority analysis.

At 2 years, however, the TLF rate was 10.4% with the polymer-free Cre8 EVO amphilimus-eluting stent and 12.1% with the durable polymer Resolute Onyx (Medtronic) zotarolimus-eluting stent, which did not achieve superiority (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.19).

Rates were numerically lower with the Cre8 EVO stent for the endpoint’s individual components of cardiac death (3.1% vs. 3.4%), target vessel MI (6.6% vs. 7.6%), and target lesion revascularization (4.3% vs. 4.6%).

Results were also similar between the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stents for all-cause mortality (7.1% vs. 6.8%), any MI (9.0% vs. 9.2%), target vessel revascularization (5.5% vs. 5.1%), all new revascularizations (7.6% vs. 9.4%), definite stent thrombosis (1.0% vs. 1.2%), and major adverse cardiac events (18.3% vs. 20.8%), Pablo Salinas, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

He noted that all-cause mortality was 7% in just 2 years in the diabetic cohort, or twice the number of cardiac deaths. “In other words, these patients had the same chance of dying from cardiac causes and noncardiac causes, so we need a more comprehensive approach to the disease. Also, if you look at all new revascularizations, roughly 50% were off target, so there is disease progression at 2 years in this population.”

Among the 586 Cre8 EVO and 589 Resolute Onyx patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), roughly half had multivessel coronary artery disease, 83% had hypertension, 81% had dyslipidemia, and 21% were current smokers. Nearly all patients had diabetes type 2 for an average of 10.6 years for Cre8 EVO and 11.4 years for Resolute Onyx, with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.4% and 7.5%, respectively.

Although there is “insufficient evidence” the Cre8 EVO stent is superior to the Resolute Onyx stent with regard to TLF, Dr. Salinas concluded extended follow-up until 5 years is warranted.

During a discussion of the results, Dr. Salinas said he expects the 5-year results will “probably go parallel” but that it’s worth following this very valuable cohort. “There are not so many trials with 1,000 diabetic patients. We always speak about how complex they are, the results are bad, but we don’t use the diabetic population in trials,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Asked during a TCT press conference what could have caused the catch-up in TLF at 2 years, Dr. Salinas said there were only 25 primary events from years 1 to 2, driven primarily by periprocedural MI, but that the timing of restenosis was different. Events accrued “drop by drop” with the Cre8 EVO, whereas with the Resolute Onyx there was a “bump in restenosis” after 6 months “but then it is very nice to see it is flat, which means that durable polymers are also safe because we have not seen late events.”

Press conference discussant Carlo Di Mario, MD, from Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, who was not involved in the study, said the reversal of superiority for the Cre8 EVO might be a “bitter note” for the investigators but “maybe it is not bitter for us because overall, the percentage of figures are so low that it’s very difficult to find a difference” between the two stents.

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

BOSTON – Despite a promising start, extended follow-up from the SUGAR trial found that the Cre8 EVO drug-eluting stent could not maintain superiority over the Resolute Onyx DES at 2 years in patients with diabetes undergoing revascularization for coronary artery disease.

The Cre8 EVO stent (Alvimedica) is not available in the United States but, as previously reported, caused a stir last year after demonstrating a 35% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year in a prespecified superiority analysis.

At 2 years, however, the TLF rate was 10.4% with the polymer-free Cre8 EVO amphilimus-eluting stent and 12.1% with the durable polymer Resolute Onyx (Medtronic) zotarolimus-eluting stent, which did not achieve superiority (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.19).

Rates were numerically lower with the Cre8 EVO stent for the endpoint’s individual components of cardiac death (3.1% vs. 3.4%), target vessel MI (6.6% vs. 7.6%), and target lesion revascularization (4.3% vs. 4.6%).

Results were also similar between the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stents for all-cause mortality (7.1% vs. 6.8%), any MI (9.0% vs. 9.2%), target vessel revascularization (5.5% vs. 5.1%), all new revascularizations (7.6% vs. 9.4%), definite stent thrombosis (1.0% vs. 1.2%), and major adverse cardiac events (18.3% vs. 20.8%), Pablo Salinas, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

He noted that all-cause mortality was 7% in just 2 years in the diabetic cohort, or twice the number of cardiac deaths. “In other words, these patients had the same chance of dying from cardiac causes and noncardiac causes, so we need a more comprehensive approach to the disease. Also, if you look at all new revascularizations, roughly 50% were off target, so there is disease progression at 2 years in this population.”

Among the 586 Cre8 EVO and 589 Resolute Onyx patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), roughly half had multivessel coronary artery disease, 83% had hypertension, 81% had dyslipidemia, and 21% were current smokers. Nearly all patients had diabetes type 2 for an average of 10.6 years for Cre8 EVO and 11.4 years for Resolute Onyx, with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.4% and 7.5%, respectively.

Although there is “insufficient evidence” the Cre8 EVO stent is superior to the Resolute Onyx stent with regard to TLF, Dr. Salinas concluded extended follow-up until 5 years is warranted.

During a discussion of the results, Dr. Salinas said he expects the 5-year results will “probably go parallel” but that it’s worth following this very valuable cohort. “There are not so many trials with 1,000 diabetic patients. We always speak about how complex they are, the results are bad, but we don’t use the diabetic population in trials,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Asked during a TCT press conference what could have caused the catch-up in TLF at 2 years, Dr. Salinas said there were only 25 primary events from years 1 to 2, driven primarily by periprocedural MI, but that the timing of restenosis was different. Events accrued “drop by drop” with the Cre8 EVO, whereas with the Resolute Onyx there was a “bump in restenosis” after 6 months “but then it is very nice to see it is flat, which means that durable polymers are also safe because we have not seen late events.”

Press conference discussant Carlo Di Mario, MD, from Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, who was not involved in the study, said the reversal of superiority for the Cre8 EVO might be a “bitter note” for the investigators but “maybe it is not bitter for us because overall, the percentage of figures are so low that it’s very difficult to find a difference” between the two stents.

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

BOSTON – Despite a promising start, extended follow-up from the SUGAR trial found that the Cre8 EVO drug-eluting stent could not maintain superiority over the Resolute Onyx DES at 2 years in patients with diabetes undergoing revascularization for coronary artery disease.

The Cre8 EVO stent (Alvimedica) is not available in the United States but, as previously reported, caused a stir last year after demonstrating a 35% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year in a prespecified superiority analysis.

At 2 years, however, the TLF rate was 10.4% with the polymer-free Cre8 EVO amphilimus-eluting stent and 12.1% with the durable polymer Resolute Onyx (Medtronic) zotarolimus-eluting stent, which did not achieve superiority (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.19).

Rates were numerically lower with the Cre8 EVO stent for the endpoint’s individual components of cardiac death (3.1% vs. 3.4%), target vessel MI (6.6% vs. 7.6%), and target lesion revascularization (4.3% vs. 4.6%).

Results were also similar between the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stents for all-cause mortality (7.1% vs. 6.8%), any MI (9.0% vs. 9.2%), target vessel revascularization (5.5% vs. 5.1%), all new revascularizations (7.6% vs. 9.4%), definite stent thrombosis (1.0% vs. 1.2%), and major adverse cardiac events (18.3% vs. 20.8%), Pablo Salinas, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

He noted that all-cause mortality was 7% in just 2 years in the diabetic cohort, or twice the number of cardiac deaths. “In other words, these patients had the same chance of dying from cardiac causes and noncardiac causes, so we need a more comprehensive approach to the disease. Also, if you look at all new revascularizations, roughly 50% were off target, so there is disease progression at 2 years in this population.”

Among the 586 Cre8 EVO and 589 Resolute Onyx patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), roughly half had multivessel coronary artery disease, 83% had hypertension, 81% had dyslipidemia, and 21% were current smokers. Nearly all patients had diabetes type 2 for an average of 10.6 years for Cre8 EVO and 11.4 years for Resolute Onyx, with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.4% and 7.5%, respectively.

Although there is “insufficient evidence” the Cre8 EVO stent is superior to the Resolute Onyx stent with regard to TLF, Dr. Salinas concluded extended follow-up until 5 years is warranted.

During a discussion of the results, Dr. Salinas said he expects the 5-year results will “probably go parallel” but that it’s worth following this very valuable cohort. “There are not so many trials with 1,000 diabetic patients. We always speak about how complex they are, the results are bad, but we don’t use the diabetic population in trials,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Asked during a TCT press conference what could have caused the catch-up in TLF at 2 years, Dr. Salinas said there were only 25 primary events from years 1 to 2, driven primarily by periprocedural MI, but that the timing of restenosis was different. Events accrued “drop by drop” with the Cre8 EVO, whereas with the Resolute Onyx there was a “bump in restenosis” after 6 months “but then it is very nice to see it is flat, which means that durable polymers are also safe because we have not seen late events.”

Press conference discussant Carlo Di Mario, MD, from Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, who was not involved in the study, said the reversal of superiority for the Cre8 EVO might be a “bitter note” for the investigators but “maybe it is not bitter for us because overall, the percentage of figures are so low that it’s very difficult to find a difference” between the two stents.

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