Acute Coronary Syndromes

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Topline results from the phase 1 APOLLO study of SLN360, a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeting lipoprotein(a), showed it significantly reduced Lp(a) in a dose-dependent manner from 46% to up to 98%.

Reductions of up to 81% were maintained out to 150 days, according to a release from the developer of the drug, Silence Therapeutics.

High Lp(a) affects about one in five people worldwide and is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There are no approved medications that selectively lower Lp(a), and levels cannot be significantly modified through lifestyle changes or any approved medications.

SLN360 is a siRNA that is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using the body’s natural process of RNA interference to target and silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 patients with serum Lp(a) concentrations of at least 150 nmol/L and no cardiovascular disease who received a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (30 mg, 100 mg, less than or equal to 300 mg, or less than or equal to 600 mg) or placebo and were followed for up to 150 days.

No clinically important safety concerns were identified, although low-grade adverse events at the injection site occurred, most prominently at the highest dose, according to the company.

Study follow-up has been extended to 1 year. Patient enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the phase 1 study in patients with high Lp(a) and a confirmed history of stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the company statement notes.

Detailed results from APOLLO will be presented in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session on April 3 by principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

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

Topline results from the phase 1 APOLLO study of SLN360, a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeting lipoprotein(a), showed it significantly reduced Lp(a) in a dose-dependent manner from 46% to up to 98%.

Reductions of up to 81% were maintained out to 150 days, according to a release from the developer of the drug, Silence Therapeutics.

High Lp(a) affects about one in five people worldwide and is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There are no approved medications that selectively lower Lp(a), and levels cannot be significantly modified through lifestyle changes or any approved medications.

SLN360 is a siRNA that is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using the body’s natural process of RNA interference to target and silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 patients with serum Lp(a) concentrations of at least 150 nmol/L and no cardiovascular disease who received a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (30 mg, 100 mg, less than or equal to 300 mg, or less than or equal to 600 mg) or placebo and were followed for up to 150 days.

No clinically important safety concerns were identified, although low-grade adverse events at the injection site occurred, most prominently at the highest dose, according to the company.

Study follow-up has been extended to 1 year. Patient enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the phase 1 study in patients with high Lp(a) and a confirmed history of stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the company statement notes.

Detailed results from APOLLO will be presented in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session on April 3 by principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

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

Topline results from the phase 1 APOLLO study of SLN360, a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeting lipoprotein(a), showed it significantly reduced Lp(a) in a dose-dependent manner from 46% to up to 98%.

Reductions of up to 81% were maintained out to 150 days, according to a release from the developer of the drug, Silence Therapeutics.

High Lp(a) affects about one in five people worldwide and is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There are no approved medications that selectively lower Lp(a), and levels cannot be significantly modified through lifestyle changes or any approved medications.

SLN360 is a siRNA that is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using the body’s natural process of RNA interference to target and silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 patients with serum Lp(a) concentrations of at least 150 nmol/L and no cardiovascular disease who received a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (30 mg, 100 mg, less than or equal to 300 mg, or less than or equal to 600 mg) or placebo and were followed for up to 150 days.

No clinically important safety concerns were identified, although low-grade adverse events at the injection site occurred, most prominently at the highest dose, according to the company.

Study follow-up has been extended to 1 year. Patient enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the phase 1 study in patients with high Lp(a) and a confirmed history of stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the company statement notes.

Detailed results from APOLLO will be presented in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session on April 3 by principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Patients who do not receive care for non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) within 24 hours have a substantially increased risk of mortality 3 years later when compared with those receiving earlier intervention, according to a population-based study evaluating more than 6,000 patients.

The characteristics of patients receiving NSTEMI care more than 24 hours after symptom onset were different from those treated earlier, but understanding these differences might provide clues for improved pathways to care, according to the investigators of this study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In a study of 6,544 NSTEMI patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry, 1,827 (27%) were evaluated and treated 24 hours or more after symptom onset. When compared with the group with a shorter symptom-to-door time, outcomes at a median follow-up of 1,098 days were substantially worse.

Most importantly, this included a more than 50% absolute unadjusted increase in death from any cause (17.0% vs. 10.5%). On a 3-year adjusted multivariate hazard ratio, the increase was 35% (HR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.56; P < .001)

The absolute relative increase in cardiac death was similar in the delayed treatment group (10.8% vs. 6.4%) with a 37% increase in the 3-year multivariate adjustment (HR, 1.37; 95% CI 1.14-1.65; P < .001).
 

Delay raises composite adverse outcome >50%

On a composite of events that included mortality, recurrent MI, or hospitalization for heart failure, the rates climbed from 15.7% in the group treated within 24 hours to 23.3% (P < .001) when treatment was delayed. Heart failure, which was not significantly increased when evaluated separately, was not a major contributor to adverse outcomes, but those with delayed treatment did have more recurrent MIs (5.3% vs. 3.7%; P = .02).

Among a long list of differences between groups, those with delayed care had higher rates of atypical chest pain (25.1% vs. 14.8%; P < .001) and dyspnea (32.6% vs. 23.4%; P < .001). Expressed in odds ratios, they were also significantly more likely to be female (OR, 1.23), be aged 75 years or older (OR, 1.44), have diabetes (OR, 1.31), and to arrive at the hospital without aid from emergency medical services (OR, 3.44).

NSTEMI patients with delayed symptom-to-door time were also less likely to have hypertension (54.8% vs. 59.1%; P < .001), chronic kidney disease (20.8% vs. 25.5%), or a family history of cardiovascular disease (4.7% vs. 7.4%; P < .001). They were more likely to have left main and multivessel disease (57.1% vs. 50.5%; P < .001).

The value of early treatment has already been demonstrated for STEMI, which is reflected in guidelines, most of which now emphasize minimizing the door-to-balloon angioplasty time in order to more rapidly restore perfusion, thereby preserving more functional cardiac tissue. This study suggests that benefit from early intervention is also true of NSTEMI.

Reducing prehospital delay in care “should be emphasized as a crucial factor that increases the risk of all-cause mortality in NSTEMI patients,” reported the authors, led by Jung-Joon Cha, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul.
 

Public health campaigns needed

When asked about the take-home message, Dr. Cha, along with the senior author, Tae Hoon Ahn, MD, PhD, contend that delays can be addressed by educating both the public and clinicians.

“We would like to emphasize the need for public health campaigns to make patients more aware of atypical symptoms,” Dr. Cha said in an interview.

Dr. Ahn also believes that there is not enough current emphasis within medical systems to recognize and urgently treat NSTEMI patients with a nontraditional profile.

“Atypical symptoms in NSTEMI patients may lead physicians to underestimate the disease severity,” according to Dr. Ahn, who participated in an interview on the significance of these results. He said that atypical symptoms should induce clinicians to exercise “more caution rather than to neglect them.”

For understanding the value of prompt care in NSTEMI patients, this is important information. However, the importance of the 24-hour threshold as a discriminator of long-term risk was questioned by José A. Barrabés, MD, PhD, head of the acute cardiac care unit, University Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona.

The cutoff in this study was 24 hours, but Dr. Barrabés in an accompanying editorial pointed out that the median delay in those with a symptom-to-door time of at least 24 hours was in fact 72.0 hours.
 

Intermediate delay effect unknown

“This time lag is unusual and reduces the generalizability of the results,” according to Dr. Barrabés. He suggested that the exceptional delay increases the likelihood that the characteristics of the patients, such as more comorbidities or lower socioeconomic status, might have played a role in the differences in outcomes.

Asked to elaborate, Dr. Barrabés explained that delays in treatment, such as antithrombotic therapy, are plausible explanations for the worse outcomes at 3 years, but it is unclear from this data whether the risk starts at a delay of 24 hours.

“It is certainly plausible that intermediate delays are also associated with a worse prognosis,” Dr. Barrabés said in an interview, but “the risk associated with an intermediate delay in symptom-to-door time cannot be quantified with the data collected in this study.”

Dr. Cha and coinvestigators reported no potential conflicts of interest for this study. Dr. Barrabés has financial relationship with AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Rovi.

Patients who do not receive care for non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) within 24 hours have a substantially increased risk of mortality 3 years later when compared with those receiving earlier intervention, according to a population-based study evaluating more than 6,000 patients.

The characteristics of patients receiving NSTEMI care more than 24 hours after symptom onset were different from those treated earlier, but understanding these differences might provide clues for improved pathways to care, according to the investigators of this study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In a study of 6,544 NSTEMI patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry, 1,827 (27%) were evaluated and treated 24 hours or more after symptom onset. When compared with the group with a shorter symptom-to-door time, outcomes at a median follow-up of 1,098 days were substantially worse.

Most importantly, this included a more than 50% absolute unadjusted increase in death from any cause (17.0% vs. 10.5%). On a 3-year adjusted multivariate hazard ratio, the increase was 35% (HR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.56; P < .001)

The absolute relative increase in cardiac death was similar in the delayed treatment group (10.8% vs. 6.4%) with a 37% increase in the 3-year multivariate adjustment (HR, 1.37; 95% CI 1.14-1.65; P < .001).
 

Delay raises composite adverse outcome >50%

On a composite of events that included mortality, recurrent MI, or hospitalization for heart failure, the rates climbed from 15.7% in the group treated within 24 hours to 23.3% (P < .001) when treatment was delayed. Heart failure, which was not significantly increased when evaluated separately, was not a major contributor to adverse outcomes, but those with delayed treatment did have more recurrent MIs (5.3% vs. 3.7%; P = .02).

Among a long list of differences between groups, those with delayed care had higher rates of atypical chest pain (25.1% vs. 14.8%; P < .001) and dyspnea (32.6% vs. 23.4%; P < .001). Expressed in odds ratios, they were also significantly more likely to be female (OR, 1.23), be aged 75 years or older (OR, 1.44), have diabetes (OR, 1.31), and to arrive at the hospital without aid from emergency medical services (OR, 3.44).

NSTEMI patients with delayed symptom-to-door time were also less likely to have hypertension (54.8% vs. 59.1%; P < .001), chronic kidney disease (20.8% vs. 25.5%), or a family history of cardiovascular disease (4.7% vs. 7.4%; P < .001). They were more likely to have left main and multivessel disease (57.1% vs. 50.5%; P < .001).

The value of early treatment has already been demonstrated for STEMI, which is reflected in guidelines, most of which now emphasize minimizing the door-to-balloon angioplasty time in order to more rapidly restore perfusion, thereby preserving more functional cardiac tissue. This study suggests that benefit from early intervention is also true of NSTEMI.

Reducing prehospital delay in care “should be emphasized as a crucial factor that increases the risk of all-cause mortality in NSTEMI patients,” reported the authors, led by Jung-Joon Cha, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul.
 

Public health campaigns needed

When asked about the take-home message, Dr. Cha, along with the senior author, Tae Hoon Ahn, MD, PhD, contend that delays can be addressed by educating both the public and clinicians.

“We would like to emphasize the need for public health campaigns to make patients more aware of atypical symptoms,” Dr. Cha said in an interview.

Dr. Ahn also believes that there is not enough current emphasis within medical systems to recognize and urgently treat NSTEMI patients with a nontraditional profile.

“Atypical symptoms in NSTEMI patients may lead physicians to underestimate the disease severity,” according to Dr. Ahn, who participated in an interview on the significance of these results. He said that atypical symptoms should induce clinicians to exercise “more caution rather than to neglect them.”

For understanding the value of prompt care in NSTEMI patients, this is important information. However, the importance of the 24-hour threshold as a discriminator of long-term risk was questioned by José A. Barrabés, MD, PhD, head of the acute cardiac care unit, University Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona.

The cutoff in this study was 24 hours, but Dr. Barrabés in an accompanying editorial pointed out that the median delay in those with a symptom-to-door time of at least 24 hours was in fact 72.0 hours.
 

Intermediate delay effect unknown

“This time lag is unusual and reduces the generalizability of the results,” according to Dr. Barrabés. He suggested that the exceptional delay increases the likelihood that the characteristics of the patients, such as more comorbidities or lower socioeconomic status, might have played a role in the differences in outcomes.

Asked to elaborate, Dr. Barrabés explained that delays in treatment, such as antithrombotic therapy, are plausible explanations for the worse outcomes at 3 years, but it is unclear from this data whether the risk starts at a delay of 24 hours.

“It is certainly plausible that intermediate delays are also associated with a worse prognosis,” Dr. Barrabés said in an interview, but “the risk associated with an intermediate delay in symptom-to-door time cannot be quantified with the data collected in this study.”

Dr. Cha and coinvestigators reported no potential conflicts of interest for this study. Dr. Barrabés has financial relationship with AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Rovi.

Patients who do not receive care for non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) within 24 hours have a substantially increased risk of mortality 3 years later when compared with those receiving earlier intervention, according to a population-based study evaluating more than 6,000 patients.

The characteristics of patients receiving NSTEMI care more than 24 hours after symptom onset were different from those treated earlier, but understanding these differences might provide clues for improved pathways to care, according to the investigators of this study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In a study of 6,544 NSTEMI patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry, 1,827 (27%) were evaluated and treated 24 hours or more after symptom onset. When compared with the group with a shorter symptom-to-door time, outcomes at a median follow-up of 1,098 days were substantially worse.

Most importantly, this included a more than 50% absolute unadjusted increase in death from any cause (17.0% vs. 10.5%). On a 3-year adjusted multivariate hazard ratio, the increase was 35% (HR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.56; P < .001)

The absolute relative increase in cardiac death was similar in the delayed treatment group (10.8% vs. 6.4%) with a 37% increase in the 3-year multivariate adjustment (HR, 1.37; 95% CI 1.14-1.65; P < .001).
 

Delay raises composite adverse outcome >50%

On a composite of events that included mortality, recurrent MI, or hospitalization for heart failure, the rates climbed from 15.7% in the group treated within 24 hours to 23.3% (P < .001) when treatment was delayed. Heart failure, which was not significantly increased when evaluated separately, was not a major contributor to adverse outcomes, but those with delayed treatment did have more recurrent MIs (5.3% vs. 3.7%; P = .02).

Among a long list of differences between groups, those with delayed care had higher rates of atypical chest pain (25.1% vs. 14.8%; P < .001) and dyspnea (32.6% vs. 23.4%; P < .001). Expressed in odds ratios, they were also significantly more likely to be female (OR, 1.23), be aged 75 years or older (OR, 1.44), have diabetes (OR, 1.31), and to arrive at the hospital without aid from emergency medical services (OR, 3.44).

NSTEMI patients with delayed symptom-to-door time were also less likely to have hypertension (54.8% vs. 59.1%; P < .001), chronic kidney disease (20.8% vs. 25.5%), or a family history of cardiovascular disease (4.7% vs. 7.4%; P < .001). They were more likely to have left main and multivessel disease (57.1% vs. 50.5%; P < .001).

The value of early treatment has already been demonstrated for STEMI, which is reflected in guidelines, most of which now emphasize minimizing the door-to-balloon angioplasty time in order to more rapidly restore perfusion, thereby preserving more functional cardiac tissue. This study suggests that benefit from early intervention is also true of NSTEMI.

Reducing prehospital delay in care “should be emphasized as a crucial factor that increases the risk of all-cause mortality in NSTEMI patients,” reported the authors, led by Jung-Joon Cha, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul.
 

Public health campaigns needed

When asked about the take-home message, Dr. Cha, along with the senior author, Tae Hoon Ahn, MD, PhD, contend that delays can be addressed by educating both the public and clinicians.

“We would like to emphasize the need for public health campaigns to make patients more aware of atypical symptoms,” Dr. Cha said in an interview.

Dr. Ahn also believes that there is not enough current emphasis within medical systems to recognize and urgently treat NSTEMI patients with a nontraditional profile.

“Atypical symptoms in NSTEMI patients may lead physicians to underestimate the disease severity,” according to Dr. Ahn, who participated in an interview on the significance of these results. He said that atypical symptoms should induce clinicians to exercise “more caution rather than to neglect them.”

For understanding the value of prompt care in NSTEMI patients, this is important information. However, the importance of the 24-hour threshold as a discriminator of long-term risk was questioned by José A. Barrabés, MD, PhD, head of the acute cardiac care unit, University Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona.

The cutoff in this study was 24 hours, but Dr. Barrabés in an accompanying editorial pointed out that the median delay in those with a symptom-to-door time of at least 24 hours was in fact 72.0 hours.
 

Intermediate delay effect unknown

“This time lag is unusual and reduces the generalizability of the results,” according to Dr. Barrabés. He suggested that the exceptional delay increases the likelihood that the characteristics of the patients, such as more comorbidities or lower socioeconomic status, might have played a role in the differences in outcomes.

Asked to elaborate, Dr. Barrabés explained that delays in treatment, such as antithrombotic therapy, are plausible explanations for the worse outcomes at 3 years, but it is unclear from this data whether the risk starts at a delay of 24 hours.

“It is certainly plausible that intermediate delays are also associated with a worse prognosis,” Dr. Barrabés said in an interview, but “the risk associated with an intermediate delay in symptom-to-door time cannot be quantified with the data collected in this study.”

Dr. Cha and coinvestigators reported no potential conflicts of interest for this study. Dr. Barrabés has financial relationship with AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Rovi.

BUENOS AIRES – The Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES) has demanded “urgent reconsideration” of the decision to downgrade the strength of the recommendation for revascularization or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for multivessel disease in the new guideline on coronary artery revascularization, putting it in the same class as the recommendation for percutaneous coronary intervention, which has no apparent advantage over optimal medical therapy.

With the prevalence of stable ischemic heart disease in patients with multivessel disease, the contradiction between the evidence and the new recommendation “may affect the lives and survival of millions of patients worldwide and have a major socio-economic impact,” the association warned in a public letter.

In the 2011 guideline, CABG for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease was given a class I recommendation, which means that it is considered useful and effective and should be performed in the majority of patients in most circumstances. But the new, much weaker class IIb recommendation suggests that the benefit only marginally exceeds the risk and that it should be used selectively and only after careful consideration.

“It is an incomprehensible rollercoaster drop in the recommendation level. We totally disagree. In the absence of evidence, a IIb level provides equal freedom to send a patient to surgery or not. And in patients who are not being sent to surgery, it could take years of survival before we can be sure that we are doing the right thing,” said LACES president Víctor Dayan, MD, PhD, from the cardiovascular center at the Hospital de Clínicas “Dr. Manuel Quintela”, which is part of the School of Medicine at the University of the Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay.

The change in the recommendation for this indication “reflects new evidence showing no advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over medical therapy alone to improve survival in patients with three-vessel coronary disease with preserved left ventricular function and no left main disease,” according to the authors of the guideline, issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). In particular, they cite the 2019 ISCHEMIA clinical study that failed to show that an early invasive strategy reduces major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with optimal medical therapy and a handful of meta-analyses.

However, ISCHEMIA did not discriminate between the two types of invasive strategy – CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) – so cannot be considered as a basis to downgrade the CABG recommendation, Dr. Dayan explained.

“Furthermore, the authors neglected previous RCTs that have shown the survival benefit of CABG in these patients and decided to put PCI in the same [class of recommendation], although no RCT has been able to show any survival advantage of PCI compared to optimal medical treatment,” the LACES letter states.

Basis should be evidence, ‘not inferences’

Three large randomized clinical trials and a 1994 meta-analysis with individual patient data from seven studies firmly established that survival is better with CABG than with medical treatment, the letter continues. However, the guideline authors did not provide any additional randomized clinical trials that refute this evidence.

“Furthermore, the committee disregarded data from the Ten-Year Follow-up Survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II) randomized control[led] trial, which showed a lower incidence of cardiac mortality (as part of its secondary outcomes) following CABG compared to optimal medical therapy and PCI,” the letter explains.

The guideline authors might have judged current optimal medical therapy to be better than what existed 10, 15, or 30 years ago, diluting the relative benefits of surgery, but the “recommendation in a guideline must act on evidence, not inferences. And there is no evidence to support this drop in recommendation class,” Dr. Dayan said.

Other experts have drawn attention to the fact that two surgical societies – the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AAST) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) – did not endorse the final document, despite having participated in its review, reported this news organization.

“This is a very disappointing update that will negatively affect the lives of many people,” tweeted Marc Pelletier, MD, head of cardiac surgery at University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Contradictions in the text that examines the evidence and the final recommendations, are “unclear” and “open to various interpretations, when they should be a pillar for decisionmaking,” said Javier Ferrari Ayarragaray, MD, president of the Argentine College of Cardiovascular Surgeons (CACCV) and vice president of LACES.

The new guidelines “show no additional randomized controlled trial to support this downgrade in the level of evidence,” according to a recent CACCV statement. “The inclusion, approval and endorsement of this type of [recommendation,] including [other] international surgical scientific societies, such as STS, AATS, EACTS, LACES[,] is necessary to obtain a better understanding and agreement on the current evidence.”

In a Dec. 17, 2021 response to LACES, Patrick O’Gara, MD, who was chair of the ACC/AHA Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines at the time, and his successor, Joshua Beckman, MD, explained that both organizations approved the guideline for publication and support its authors “in their interpretation of the published evidence and findings.”

The pair pointed out that the drafting committee members, who have extensive clinical judgment and experience, deliberated extensively on the issue and that the change from a class I to a class IIb recommendation was “carefully considered after a review of the entire available and relevant evidence.”

“When we bring together multiple organizations to review and summarize the evidence, we work collaboratively to interpret the extensive catalog of published and peer-reviewed literature and create clinical practice recommendations,” said Thomas Getchius, director of guideline strategy and operations at the AHA.

“The final guideline reflects the latest evidence-based recommendations for coronary artery revascularization, as agreed upon by the ACC, AHA, SCAI, and the full drafting committee,” Mr. Getchius said.

Dr. Dayan and Dr. Ferrari Ayarragaray have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Getchius is an employee of the American Heart Association.

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

BUENOS AIRES – The Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES) has demanded “urgent reconsideration” of the decision to downgrade the strength of the recommendation for revascularization or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for multivessel disease in the new guideline on coronary artery revascularization, putting it in the same class as the recommendation for percutaneous coronary intervention, which has no apparent advantage over optimal medical therapy.

With the prevalence of stable ischemic heart disease in patients with multivessel disease, the contradiction between the evidence and the new recommendation “may affect the lives and survival of millions of patients worldwide and have a major socio-economic impact,” the association warned in a public letter.

In the 2011 guideline, CABG for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease was given a class I recommendation, which means that it is considered useful and effective and should be performed in the majority of patients in most circumstances. But the new, much weaker class IIb recommendation suggests that the benefit only marginally exceeds the risk and that it should be used selectively and only after careful consideration.

“It is an incomprehensible rollercoaster drop in the recommendation level. We totally disagree. In the absence of evidence, a IIb level provides equal freedom to send a patient to surgery or not. And in patients who are not being sent to surgery, it could take years of survival before we can be sure that we are doing the right thing,” said LACES president Víctor Dayan, MD, PhD, from the cardiovascular center at the Hospital de Clínicas “Dr. Manuel Quintela”, which is part of the School of Medicine at the University of the Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay.

The change in the recommendation for this indication “reflects new evidence showing no advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over medical therapy alone to improve survival in patients with three-vessel coronary disease with preserved left ventricular function and no left main disease,” according to the authors of the guideline, issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). In particular, they cite the 2019 ISCHEMIA clinical study that failed to show that an early invasive strategy reduces major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with optimal medical therapy and a handful of meta-analyses.

However, ISCHEMIA did not discriminate between the two types of invasive strategy – CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) – so cannot be considered as a basis to downgrade the CABG recommendation, Dr. Dayan explained.

“Furthermore, the authors neglected previous RCTs that have shown the survival benefit of CABG in these patients and decided to put PCI in the same [class of recommendation], although no RCT has been able to show any survival advantage of PCI compared to optimal medical treatment,” the LACES letter states.

Basis should be evidence, ‘not inferences’

Three large randomized clinical trials and a 1994 meta-analysis with individual patient data from seven studies firmly established that survival is better with CABG than with medical treatment, the letter continues. However, the guideline authors did not provide any additional randomized clinical trials that refute this evidence.

“Furthermore, the committee disregarded data from the Ten-Year Follow-up Survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II) randomized control[led] trial, which showed a lower incidence of cardiac mortality (as part of its secondary outcomes) following CABG compared to optimal medical therapy and PCI,” the letter explains.

The guideline authors might have judged current optimal medical therapy to be better than what existed 10, 15, or 30 years ago, diluting the relative benefits of surgery, but the “recommendation in a guideline must act on evidence, not inferences. And there is no evidence to support this drop in recommendation class,” Dr. Dayan said.

Other experts have drawn attention to the fact that two surgical societies – the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AAST) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) – did not endorse the final document, despite having participated in its review, reported this news organization.

“This is a very disappointing update that will negatively affect the lives of many people,” tweeted Marc Pelletier, MD, head of cardiac surgery at University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Contradictions in the text that examines the evidence and the final recommendations, are “unclear” and “open to various interpretations, when they should be a pillar for decisionmaking,” said Javier Ferrari Ayarragaray, MD, president of the Argentine College of Cardiovascular Surgeons (CACCV) and vice president of LACES.

The new guidelines “show no additional randomized controlled trial to support this downgrade in the level of evidence,” according to a recent CACCV statement. “The inclusion, approval and endorsement of this type of [recommendation,] including [other] international surgical scientific societies, such as STS, AATS, EACTS, LACES[,] is necessary to obtain a better understanding and agreement on the current evidence.”

In a Dec. 17, 2021 response to LACES, Patrick O’Gara, MD, who was chair of the ACC/AHA Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines at the time, and his successor, Joshua Beckman, MD, explained that both organizations approved the guideline for publication and support its authors “in their interpretation of the published evidence and findings.”

The pair pointed out that the drafting committee members, who have extensive clinical judgment and experience, deliberated extensively on the issue and that the change from a class I to a class IIb recommendation was “carefully considered after a review of the entire available and relevant evidence.”

“When we bring together multiple organizations to review and summarize the evidence, we work collaboratively to interpret the extensive catalog of published and peer-reviewed literature and create clinical practice recommendations,” said Thomas Getchius, director of guideline strategy and operations at the AHA.

“The final guideline reflects the latest evidence-based recommendations for coronary artery revascularization, as agreed upon by the ACC, AHA, SCAI, and the full drafting committee,” Mr. Getchius said.

Dr. Dayan and Dr. Ferrari Ayarragaray have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Getchius is an employee of the American Heart Association.

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

BUENOS AIRES – The Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES) has demanded “urgent reconsideration” of the decision to downgrade the strength of the recommendation for revascularization or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for multivessel disease in the new guideline on coronary artery revascularization, putting it in the same class as the recommendation for percutaneous coronary intervention, which has no apparent advantage over optimal medical therapy.

With the prevalence of stable ischemic heart disease in patients with multivessel disease, the contradiction between the evidence and the new recommendation “may affect the lives and survival of millions of patients worldwide and have a major socio-economic impact,” the association warned in a public letter.

In the 2011 guideline, CABG for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease was given a class I recommendation, which means that it is considered useful and effective and should be performed in the majority of patients in most circumstances. But the new, much weaker class IIb recommendation suggests that the benefit only marginally exceeds the risk and that it should be used selectively and only after careful consideration.

“It is an incomprehensible rollercoaster drop in the recommendation level. We totally disagree. In the absence of evidence, a IIb level provides equal freedom to send a patient to surgery or not. And in patients who are not being sent to surgery, it could take years of survival before we can be sure that we are doing the right thing,” said LACES president Víctor Dayan, MD, PhD, from the cardiovascular center at the Hospital de Clínicas “Dr. Manuel Quintela”, which is part of the School of Medicine at the University of the Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay.

The change in the recommendation for this indication “reflects new evidence showing no advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over medical therapy alone to improve survival in patients with three-vessel coronary disease with preserved left ventricular function and no left main disease,” according to the authors of the guideline, issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). In particular, they cite the 2019 ISCHEMIA clinical study that failed to show that an early invasive strategy reduces major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with optimal medical therapy and a handful of meta-analyses.

However, ISCHEMIA did not discriminate between the two types of invasive strategy – CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) – so cannot be considered as a basis to downgrade the CABG recommendation, Dr. Dayan explained.

“Furthermore, the authors neglected previous RCTs that have shown the survival benefit of CABG in these patients and decided to put PCI in the same [class of recommendation], although no RCT has been able to show any survival advantage of PCI compared to optimal medical treatment,” the LACES letter states.

Basis should be evidence, ‘not inferences’

Three large randomized clinical trials and a 1994 meta-analysis with individual patient data from seven studies firmly established that survival is better with CABG than with medical treatment, the letter continues. However, the guideline authors did not provide any additional randomized clinical trials that refute this evidence.

“Furthermore, the committee disregarded data from the Ten-Year Follow-up Survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II) randomized control[led] trial, which showed a lower incidence of cardiac mortality (as part of its secondary outcomes) following CABG compared to optimal medical therapy and PCI,” the letter explains.

The guideline authors might have judged current optimal medical therapy to be better than what existed 10, 15, or 30 years ago, diluting the relative benefits of surgery, but the “recommendation in a guideline must act on evidence, not inferences. And there is no evidence to support this drop in recommendation class,” Dr. Dayan said.

Other experts have drawn attention to the fact that two surgical societies – the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AAST) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) – did not endorse the final document, despite having participated in its review, reported this news organization.

“This is a very disappointing update that will negatively affect the lives of many people,” tweeted Marc Pelletier, MD, head of cardiac surgery at University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Contradictions in the text that examines the evidence and the final recommendations, are “unclear” and “open to various interpretations, when they should be a pillar for decisionmaking,” said Javier Ferrari Ayarragaray, MD, president of the Argentine College of Cardiovascular Surgeons (CACCV) and vice president of LACES.

The new guidelines “show no additional randomized controlled trial to support this downgrade in the level of evidence,” according to a recent CACCV statement. “The inclusion, approval and endorsement of this type of [recommendation,] including [other] international surgical scientific societies, such as STS, AATS, EACTS, LACES[,] is necessary to obtain a better understanding and agreement on the current evidence.”

In a Dec. 17, 2021 response to LACES, Patrick O’Gara, MD, who was chair of the ACC/AHA Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines at the time, and his successor, Joshua Beckman, MD, explained that both organizations approved the guideline for publication and support its authors “in their interpretation of the published evidence and findings.”

The pair pointed out that the drafting committee members, who have extensive clinical judgment and experience, deliberated extensively on the issue and that the change from a class I to a class IIb recommendation was “carefully considered after a review of the entire available and relevant evidence.”

“When we bring together multiple organizations to review and summarize the evidence, we work collaboratively to interpret the extensive catalog of published and peer-reviewed literature and create clinical practice recommendations,” said Thomas Getchius, director of guideline strategy and operations at the AHA.

“The final guideline reflects the latest evidence-based recommendations for coronary artery revascularization, as agreed upon by the ACC, AHA, SCAI, and the full drafting committee,” Mr. Getchius said.

Dr. Dayan and Dr. Ferrari Ayarragaray have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Getchius is an employee of the American Heart Association.

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

New research suggests serial coronary CT angiography (CCTA) can provide novel insights into the association between lipoprotein(a) and plaque progression over time in patients with advanced coronary artery disease.

Researchers examined data from 191 individuals with multivessel coronary disease receiving preventive statin (95%) and antiplatelet (100%) therapy in the single-center Scottish DIAMOND trial and compared CCTA at baseline and 12 months available for 160 patients.

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, patients with high Lp(a), defined as at least 70 mg/dL, had higher baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and ASSIGN scores than those with low Lp(a) but had comparable coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores and total, calcific, noncalcific, and low-attenuation plaque (LAP) volumes.

At 1 year, however, LAP volume – a marker for necrotic core – increased by 26.2 mm3 in the high-Lp(a) group and decreased by –0.7 mm3 in the low-Lp(a) group (P = .020).

There was no significant difference in change in total, calcific, and noncalcific plaque volumes between groups.

In multivariate linear regression analysis adjusting for body mass index, ASSIGN score, and segment involvement score, LAP volume increased by 10.5% for each 50 mg/dL increment in Lp(a) (P = .034).

“It’s an exciting observation, because we’ve done previous studies where we’ve demonstrated the association of that particular plaque type with future myocardial infarction,” senior author Marc R. Dweck, MD, PhD, University of Amsterdam, told this news organization. “So, you’ve potentially got an explanation for the adverse prognosis associated with high lipoprotein(a) and its link to cardiovascular events and, in particular, myocardial infarction.”

The team’s recent SCOT-HEART analysis found that LAP burden was a stronger predictor of myocardial infarction (MI) than cardiovascular risk scores, stenosis severity, and CAC scoring, with MI risk nearly five-fold higher if LAP was above 4%.

As to why total, calcific, and noncalcific plaque volumes didn’t change significantly on repeat CCTA in the present study, Dr. Dweck said it’s possible that the sample was too small and follow-up too short but also that “total plaque volume is really dominated by the fibrous plaque, which doesn’t appear affected by Lp(a).” Nevertheless, Lp(a)’s effect on low-attenuation plaque was clearly present and supported by the change in fibro-fatty plaque, the next-most unstable plaque type.

At 1 year, fibro-fatty plaque volume was 55.0 mm3 in the high-Lp(a) group versus –25.0 mm3 in the low-Lp(a) group (P = .020).

Lp(a) was associated with fibro-fatty plaque progression in univariate analysis (β = 6.7%; P = .034) and showed a trend in multivariable analysis (β = 6.0%; P = .062).

“This study shows you can track changes in plaque over time and highlight important disease mechanisms and use them to understand the pathology of the disease,” Dr. Dweck said. “I’m very encouraged by this.”

What’s novel in the present study is that “it represents the beginning of our understanding of the role of Lp(a) in plaque progression,” Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, and Jagat Narula, MD, PhD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, say in an accompanying commentary.

They note that prior studies, including the Dallas Heart Study, have struggled to find a strong association between Lp(a) with the extent or progression of CAC, despite elevated Lp(a) and CAC identifying higher-risk patients.

Similarly, a meta-analysis of intravascular ultrasound trials turned up only a 1.2% absolute difference in atheroma volume in patients with elevated Lp(a), and a recent optical coherence tomography study found an association of Lp(a) with thin-cap fibroatheromas but not lipid core.

With just 36 patients with elevated Lp(a), however, the current findings need validation in a larger data set, Dr. Tsimikas and Dr. Narula say.

Although Lp(a) is genetically elevated in about one in five individuals and measurement is recommended in European dyslipidemia guidelines, testing rates are low, in part because the argument has been that there are no Lp(a)-lowering therapies available, Dr. Dweck observed. That may change with the phase 3 cardiovascular outcomes Lp(a)HORIZON trial, which follows strong phase 2 results with the antisense agent AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx and is enrolling patients similar to the current cohort.

“Ultimately it comes down to that fundamental thing, that you need an action once you’ve done the test and then insurers will be happy to pay for it and clinicians will ask for it. That’s why that trial is so important,” Dr. Dweck said.

Dr. Tsimikas and Dr. Narula also point to the eagerly awaited results of that trial, expected in 2025. “A positive trial is likely to lead to additional trials and new drugs that may reinvigorate the use of imaging modalities that could go beyond plaque volume and atherosclerosis to also predict clinically relevant inflammation and atherothrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Dweck is supported by the British Heart Foundation and is the recipient of the Sir Jules Thorn Award for Biomedical Research 2015; has received speaker fees from Pfizer and Novartis; and has received consultancy fees from Novartis, Jupiter Bioventures, and Silence Therapeutics. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Tsimikas has a dual appointment at the University of California, San Diego, (UCSD) and Ionis Pharmaceuticals; is a coinventor and receives royalties from patents owned by UCSD; and is a cofounder and has an equity interest in Oxitope and its affiliates, Kleanthi Diagnostics, and Covicept Therapeutics. Dr. Narula reports having no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research suggests serial coronary CT angiography (CCTA) can provide novel insights into the association between lipoprotein(a) and plaque progression over time in patients with advanced coronary artery disease.

Researchers examined data from 191 individuals with multivessel coronary disease receiving preventive statin (95%) and antiplatelet (100%) therapy in the single-center Scottish DIAMOND trial and compared CCTA at baseline and 12 months available for 160 patients.

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, patients with high Lp(a), defined as at least 70 mg/dL, had higher baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and ASSIGN scores than those with low Lp(a) but had comparable coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores and total, calcific, noncalcific, and low-attenuation plaque (LAP) volumes.

At 1 year, however, LAP volume – a marker for necrotic core – increased by 26.2 mm3 in the high-Lp(a) group and decreased by –0.7 mm3 in the low-Lp(a) group (P = .020).

There was no significant difference in change in total, calcific, and noncalcific plaque volumes between groups.

In multivariate linear regression analysis adjusting for body mass index, ASSIGN score, and segment involvement score, LAP volume increased by 10.5% for each 50 mg/dL increment in Lp(a) (P = .034).

“It’s an exciting observation, because we’ve done previous studies where we’ve demonstrated the association of that particular plaque type with future myocardial infarction,” senior author Marc R. Dweck, MD, PhD, University of Amsterdam, told this news organization. “So, you’ve potentially got an explanation for the adverse prognosis associated with high lipoprotein(a) and its link to cardiovascular events and, in particular, myocardial infarction.”

The team’s recent SCOT-HEART analysis found that LAP burden was a stronger predictor of myocardial infarction (MI) than cardiovascular risk scores, stenosis severity, and CAC scoring, with MI risk nearly five-fold higher if LAP was above 4%.

As to why total, calcific, and noncalcific plaque volumes didn’t change significantly on repeat CCTA in the present study, Dr. Dweck said it’s possible that the sample was too small and follow-up too short but also that “total plaque volume is really dominated by the fibrous plaque, which doesn’t appear affected by Lp(a).” Nevertheless, Lp(a)’s effect on low-attenuation plaque was clearly present and supported by the change in fibro-fatty plaque, the next-most unstable plaque type.

At 1 year, fibro-fatty plaque volume was 55.0 mm3 in the high-Lp(a) group versus –25.0 mm3 in the low-Lp(a) group (P = .020).

Lp(a) was associated with fibro-fatty plaque progression in univariate analysis (β = 6.7%; P = .034) and showed a trend in multivariable analysis (β = 6.0%; P = .062).

“This study shows you can track changes in plaque over time and highlight important disease mechanisms and use them to understand the pathology of the disease,” Dr. Dweck said. “I’m very encouraged by this.”

What’s novel in the present study is that “it represents the beginning of our understanding of the role of Lp(a) in plaque progression,” Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, and Jagat Narula, MD, PhD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, say in an accompanying commentary.

They note that prior studies, including the Dallas Heart Study, have struggled to find a strong association between Lp(a) with the extent or progression of CAC, despite elevated Lp(a) and CAC identifying higher-risk patients.

Similarly, a meta-analysis of intravascular ultrasound trials turned up only a 1.2% absolute difference in atheroma volume in patients with elevated Lp(a), and a recent optical coherence tomography study found an association of Lp(a) with thin-cap fibroatheromas but not lipid core.

With just 36 patients with elevated Lp(a), however, the current findings need validation in a larger data set, Dr. Tsimikas and Dr. Narula say.

Although Lp(a) is genetically elevated in about one in five individuals and measurement is recommended in European dyslipidemia guidelines, testing rates are low, in part because the argument has been that there are no Lp(a)-lowering therapies available, Dr. Dweck observed. That may change with the phase 3 cardiovascular outcomes Lp(a)HORIZON trial, which follows strong phase 2 results with the antisense agent AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx and is enrolling patients similar to the current cohort.

“Ultimately it comes down to that fundamental thing, that you need an action once you’ve done the test and then insurers will be happy to pay for it and clinicians will ask for it. That’s why that trial is so important,” Dr. Dweck said.

Dr. Tsimikas and Dr. Narula also point to the eagerly awaited results of that trial, expected in 2025. “A positive trial is likely to lead to additional trials and new drugs that may reinvigorate the use of imaging modalities that could go beyond plaque volume and atherosclerosis to also predict clinically relevant inflammation and atherothrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Dweck is supported by the British Heart Foundation and is the recipient of the Sir Jules Thorn Award for Biomedical Research 2015; has received speaker fees from Pfizer and Novartis; and has received consultancy fees from Novartis, Jupiter Bioventures, and Silence Therapeutics. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Tsimikas has a dual appointment at the University of California, San Diego, (UCSD) and Ionis Pharmaceuticals; is a coinventor and receives royalties from patents owned by UCSD; and is a cofounder and has an equity interest in Oxitope and its affiliates, Kleanthi Diagnostics, and Covicept Therapeutics. Dr. Narula reports having no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research suggests serial coronary CT angiography (CCTA) can provide novel insights into the association between lipoprotein(a) and plaque progression over time in patients with advanced coronary artery disease.

Researchers examined data from 191 individuals with multivessel coronary disease receiving preventive statin (95%) and antiplatelet (100%) therapy in the single-center Scottish DIAMOND trial and compared CCTA at baseline and 12 months available for 160 patients.

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, patients with high Lp(a), defined as at least 70 mg/dL, had higher baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and ASSIGN scores than those with low Lp(a) but had comparable coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores and total, calcific, noncalcific, and low-attenuation plaque (LAP) volumes.

At 1 year, however, LAP volume – a marker for necrotic core – increased by 26.2 mm3 in the high-Lp(a) group and decreased by –0.7 mm3 in the low-Lp(a) group (P = .020).

There was no significant difference in change in total, calcific, and noncalcific plaque volumes between groups.

In multivariate linear regression analysis adjusting for body mass index, ASSIGN score, and segment involvement score, LAP volume increased by 10.5% for each 50 mg/dL increment in Lp(a) (P = .034).

“It’s an exciting observation, because we’ve done previous studies where we’ve demonstrated the association of that particular plaque type with future myocardial infarction,” senior author Marc R. Dweck, MD, PhD, University of Amsterdam, told this news organization. “So, you’ve potentially got an explanation for the adverse prognosis associated with high lipoprotein(a) and its link to cardiovascular events and, in particular, myocardial infarction.”

The team’s recent SCOT-HEART analysis found that LAP burden was a stronger predictor of myocardial infarction (MI) than cardiovascular risk scores, stenosis severity, and CAC scoring, with MI risk nearly five-fold higher if LAP was above 4%.

As to why total, calcific, and noncalcific plaque volumes didn’t change significantly on repeat CCTA in the present study, Dr. Dweck said it’s possible that the sample was too small and follow-up too short but also that “total plaque volume is really dominated by the fibrous plaque, which doesn’t appear affected by Lp(a).” Nevertheless, Lp(a)’s effect on low-attenuation plaque was clearly present and supported by the change in fibro-fatty plaque, the next-most unstable plaque type.

At 1 year, fibro-fatty plaque volume was 55.0 mm3 in the high-Lp(a) group versus –25.0 mm3 in the low-Lp(a) group (P = .020).

Lp(a) was associated with fibro-fatty plaque progression in univariate analysis (β = 6.7%; P = .034) and showed a trend in multivariable analysis (β = 6.0%; P = .062).

“This study shows you can track changes in plaque over time and highlight important disease mechanisms and use them to understand the pathology of the disease,” Dr. Dweck said. “I’m very encouraged by this.”

What’s novel in the present study is that “it represents the beginning of our understanding of the role of Lp(a) in plaque progression,” Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, and Jagat Narula, MD, PhD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, say in an accompanying commentary.

They note that prior studies, including the Dallas Heart Study, have struggled to find a strong association between Lp(a) with the extent or progression of CAC, despite elevated Lp(a) and CAC identifying higher-risk patients.

Similarly, a meta-analysis of intravascular ultrasound trials turned up only a 1.2% absolute difference in atheroma volume in patients with elevated Lp(a), and a recent optical coherence tomography study found an association of Lp(a) with thin-cap fibroatheromas but not lipid core.

With just 36 patients with elevated Lp(a), however, the current findings need validation in a larger data set, Dr. Tsimikas and Dr. Narula say.

Although Lp(a) is genetically elevated in about one in five individuals and measurement is recommended in European dyslipidemia guidelines, testing rates are low, in part because the argument has been that there are no Lp(a)-lowering therapies available, Dr. Dweck observed. That may change with the phase 3 cardiovascular outcomes Lp(a)HORIZON trial, which follows strong phase 2 results with the antisense agent AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx and is enrolling patients similar to the current cohort.

“Ultimately it comes down to that fundamental thing, that you need an action once you’ve done the test and then insurers will be happy to pay for it and clinicians will ask for it. That’s why that trial is so important,” Dr. Dweck said.

Dr. Tsimikas and Dr. Narula also point to the eagerly awaited results of that trial, expected in 2025. “A positive trial is likely to lead to additional trials and new drugs that may reinvigorate the use of imaging modalities that could go beyond plaque volume and atherosclerosis to also predict clinically relevant inflammation and atherothrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Dweck is supported by the British Heart Foundation and is the recipient of the Sir Jules Thorn Award for Biomedical Research 2015; has received speaker fees from Pfizer and Novartis; and has received consultancy fees from Novartis, Jupiter Bioventures, and Silence Therapeutics. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Tsimikas has a dual appointment at the University of California, San Diego, (UCSD) and Ionis Pharmaceuticals; is a coinventor and receives royalties from patents owned by UCSD; and is a cofounder and has an equity interest in Oxitope and its affiliates, Kleanthi Diagnostics, and Covicept Therapeutics. Dr. Narula reports having no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a meta-analysis of more than 1 million mothers, those who breastfed their children had an 11% to 17% lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), or stroke, and of dying from CVD, in later life than mothers who did not.

On average, the women had two children and had breastfed for 15.9 months in total. Longer breastfeeding was associated with greater CV health benefit.

This meta-analysis of eight studies from different countries was published online Jan. 11 in an issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association devoted to the impact of pregnancy on CV health in the mother and child.

Breastfeeding is known to be associated with a lower risk for death from infectious disease and with fewer respiratory infections in babies, the researchers write, but what is less well known is that it is also associated with a reduced risk for breast and ovarian cancer and type 2 diabetes in mothers.

The current study showed a clear association between breastfeeding and reduced risk for CVD in later life, lead author Lena Tschiderer, Dipl.-Ing., PhD, and senior author Peter Willeit, MD, MPhil, PhD, summarized in a joint email to this news organization.

Specifically, mothers who had breastfed their children at any time had an 11% lower risk for CVD, a 14% lower risk for CHD, a 12% lower risk for stroke, and a 17% lower risk of dying from CVD in later life, compared with other mothers.

On the basis of existing evidence, the researchers write, the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding until a baby is 6 months old, followed by breastfeeding plus complementary feeding until the baby is 2 years or older.

“We believe that [breastfeeding] benefits for the mother are communicated poorly,” said Dr. Tschiderer and Dr. Willeit, from the University of Innsbruck, Austria.

“Positive effects of breastfeeding on mothers need to be communicated effectively, awareness for breastfeeding recommendations needs to be raised, and interventions to promote and facilitate breastfeeding need to be implemented and reinforced,” the researchers conclude.
 

‘Should not be ignored’

Two cardiologists invited to comment, who were not involved with the research, noted that this study provides insight into an important topic.

“This is yet another body of evidence [and the largest population to date] to show that breastfeeding is protective for women and may show important beneficial effects in terms of CV risk,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said in an email.

“The risk reductions were 11% for CVD events and 14% for CHD events; these are impressive numbers,” said Dr. Mehran, from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The caveat,” she said, “is that these are data from several trials, but nonetheless, this is a very important observation that should not be ignored.”

The study did not address the definitive amount of time of breastfeeding and its correlation to the improvement of CVD risk, but it did show that for the lifetime duration, the longer the better.

“The beneficial effects,” she noted, “can be linked to hormones during breastfeeding, as well as weight loss associated with breastfeeding, and resetting the maternal metabolism, as the authors suggest.”

Clinicians and employers “must provide ways to educate women about breastfeeding and make it easy for women who are in the workplace to pump, and to provide them with resources” where possible, Dr. Mehran said.

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, noted that over the past several years, there has been intense interest in the possible health benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and child.

There is biologic plausibility for some of the possible maternal benefits because the favorable CV effects of both prolactin and oxytocin are only now being better understood, said Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“The current meta-analysis provides a large dataset that helps support the concept that breastfeeding may offer some cardiovascular benefit for the mother,” she agreed.

“However, ultimately more research will be necessary since this method of combining data across trials relies upon the robustness of the statistical method in each study,” Dr. O’Donoghue said. “I applaud the authors for shining a spotlight on this important topic.”

Although the benefits of breastfeeding appear to continue over time, “it is incredibly difficult for women to continue breastfeeding once they return to work,” she added. “Women in some countries outside the U.S. have an advantage due to longer durations of maternity leave.

“If we want to encourage breastfeeding,” Dr. O’Donoghue stressed, “we need to make sure that we put the right supports in place. Women need protected places to breastfeed in the workplace and places to store their milk. Most importantly, women need to be allowed dedicated time to make it happen.”
 

First large study of CVD in mothers

Emerging individual studies suggest that mothers who breastfeed may have a lower risk for CVD in later life, but studies have been inconsistent, and it is not clear if longer breastfeeding would strengthen this benefit, the authors note.

To examine this, they pooled data from the following eight studies (with study acronym, country, and baseline enrolment dates in brackets): 45&Up (Australia, 2006-2009), China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB, China, 2004-2008), European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC, multinational, 1992-2000), Gallagher et al. (China, 1989-1991), Nord-Trøndelag Health Survey 2 (HUNT2, Norway, 1995-1997), Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study (JPHC, Japan, 1990-1994), Nurses’ Health Study (NHS, U.S., 1986), and the Woman’s Health Initiative (WHI, U.S., 1993-1998).

On average, the women were 51.3 years old (range, 40-65 years) when they enrolled in the study, and they were followed for a median of 10.3 years (range, 7.9-20.9 years, in the individual studies).

On average, they had their first child at age 25 and had two to three children (mean, 2.3); 82% had breastfed at some point (ranging from 58% of women in the two U.S. studies to 97% in CKB and HUNT2).

The women had breastfed for a mean of 7.4 to 18.9 months during their lifetimes (except women in the CKB study, who had breastfed for a median of 24 months).

Among the 1,192,700 women, there were 54,226 incident CVD events, 26,913 incident CHD events, 30,843 incident strokes, and 10,766 deaths from CVD during follow-up.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include the fact that there could have been publication bias, since fewer than 10 studies were available for pooling. There was significant between-study heterogeneity for CVD, CHD, and stroke outcomes.

Participant-level data were also lacking, and breastfeeding was self-reported. There may have been unaccounted residual confounding, and the benefits of lifetime breastfeeding that is longer than 2 years are not clear, because few women in this population breastfed that long.

The research was funded by the Austrian Science Fund. The researchers and Dr. Mehran and Dr. O’Donoghue have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

In a meta-analysis of more than 1 million mothers, those who breastfed their children had an 11% to 17% lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), or stroke, and of dying from CVD, in later life than mothers who did not.

On average, the women had two children and had breastfed for 15.9 months in total. Longer breastfeeding was associated with greater CV health benefit.

This meta-analysis of eight studies from different countries was published online Jan. 11 in an issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association devoted to the impact of pregnancy on CV health in the mother and child.

Breastfeeding is known to be associated with a lower risk for death from infectious disease and with fewer respiratory infections in babies, the researchers write, but what is less well known is that it is also associated with a reduced risk for breast and ovarian cancer and type 2 diabetes in mothers.

The current study showed a clear association between breastfeeding and reduced risk for CVD in later life, lead author Lena Tschiderer, Dipl.-Ing., PhD, and senior author Peter Willeit, MD, MPhil, PhD, summarized in a joint email to this news organization.

Specifically, mothers who had breastfed their children at any time had an 11% lower risk for CVD, a 14% lower risk for CHD, a 12% lower risk for stroke, and a 17% lower risk of dying from CVD in later life, compared with other mothers.

On the basis of existing evidence, the researchers write, the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding until a baby is 6 months old, followed by breastfeeding plus complementary feeding until the baby is 2 years or older.

“We believe that [breastfeeding] benefits for the mother are communicated poorly,” said Dr. Tschiderer and Dr. Willeit, from the University of Innsbruck, Austria.

“Positive effects of breastfeeding on mothers need to be communicated effectively, awareness for breastfeeding recommendations needs to be raised, and interventions to promote and facilitate breastfeeding need to be implemented and reinforced,” the researchers conclude.
 

‘Should not be ignored’

Two cardiologists invited to comment, who were not involved with the research, noted that this study provides insight into an important topic.

“This is yet another body of evidence [and the largest population to date] to show that breastfeeding is protective for women and may show important beneficial effects in terms of CV risk,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said in an email.

“The risk reductions were 11% for CVD events and 14% for CHD events; these are impressive numbers,” said Dr. Mehran, from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The caveat,” she said, “is that these are data from several trials, but nonetheless, this is a very important observation that should not be ignored.”

The study did not address the definitive amount of time of breastfeeding and its correlation to the improvement of CVD risk, but it did show that for the lifetime duration, the longer the better.

“The beneficial effects,” she noted, “can be linked to hormones during breastfeeding, as well as weight loss associated with breastfeeding, and resetting the maternal metabolism, as the authors suggest.”

Clinicians and employers “must provide ways to educate women about breastfeeding and make it easy for women who are in the workplace to pump, and to provide them with resources” where possible, Dr. Mehran said.

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, noted that over the past several years, there has been intense interest in the possible health benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and child.

There is biologic plausibility for some of the possible maternal benefits because the favorable CV effects of both prolactin and oxytocin are only now being better understood, said Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“The current meta-analysis provides a large dataset that helps support the concept that breastfeeding may offer some cardiovascular benefit for the mother,” she agreed.

“However, ultimately more research will be necessary since this method of combining data across trials relies upon the robustness of the statistical method in each study,” Dr. O’Donoghue said. “I applaud the authors for shining a spotlight on this important topic.”

Although the benefits of breastfeeding appear to continue over time, “it is incredibly difficult for women to continue breastfeeding once they return to work,” she added. “Women in some countries outside the U.S. have an advantage due to longer durations of maternity leave.

“If we want to encourage breastfeeding,” Dr. O’Donoghue stressed, “we need to make sure that we put the right supports in place. Women need protected places to breastfeed in the workplace and places to store their milk. Most importantly, women need to be allowed dedicated time to make it happen.”
 

First large study of CVD in mothers

Emerging individual studies suggest that mothers who breastfeed may have a lower risk for CVD in later life, but studies have been inconsistent, and it is not clear if longer breastfeeding would strengthen this benefit, the authors note.

To examine this, they pooled data from the following eight studies (with study acronym, country, and baseline enrolment dates in brackets): 45&Up (Australia, 2006-2009), China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB, China, 2004-2008), European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC, multinational, 1992-2000), Gallagher et al. (China, 1989-1991), Nord-Trøndelag Health Survey 2 (HUNT2, Norway, 1995-1997), Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study (JPHC, Japan, 1990-1994), Nurses’ Health Study (NHS, U.S., 1986), and the Woman’s Health Initiative (WHI, U.S., 1993-1998).

On average, the women were 51.3 years old (range, 40-65 years) when they enrolled in the study, and they were followed for a median of 10.3 years (range, 7.9-20.9 years, in the individual studies).

On average, they had their first child at age 25 and had two to three children (mean, 2.3); 82% had breastfed at some point (ranging from 58% of women in the two U.S. studies to 97% in CKB and HUNT2).

The women had breastfed for a mean of 7.4 to 18.9 months during their lifetimes (except women in the CKB study, who had breastfed for a median of 24 months).

Among the 1,192,700 women, there were 54,226 incident CVD events, 26,913 incident CHD events, 30,843 incident strokes, and 10,766 deaths from CVD during follow-up.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include the fact that there could have been publication bias, since fewer than 10 studies were available for pooling. There was significant between-study heterogeneity for CVD, CHD, and stroke outcomes.

Participant-level data were also lacking, and breastfeeding was self-reported. There may have been unaccounted residual confounding, and the benefits of lifetime breastfeeding that is longer than 2 years are not clear, because few women in this population breastfed that long.

The research was funded by the Austrian Science Fund. The researchers and Dr. Mehran and Dr. O’Donoghue have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

In a meta-analysis of more than 1 million mothers, those who breastfed their children had an 11% to 17% lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), or stroke, and of dying from CVD, in later life than mothers who did not.

On average, the women had two children and had breastfed for 15.9 months in total. Longer breastfeeding was associated with greater CV health benefit.

This meta-analysis of eight studies from different countries was published online Jan. 11 in an issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association devoted to the impact of pregnancy on CV health in the mother and child.

Breastfeeding is known to be associated with a lower risk for death from infectious disease and with fewer respiratory infections in babies, the researchers write, but what is less well known is that it is also associated with a reduced risk for breast and ovarian cancer and type 2 diabetes in mothers.

The current study showed a clear association between breastfeeding and reduced risk for CVD in later life, lead author Lena Tschiderer, Dipl.-Ing., PhD, and senior author Peter Willeit, MD, MPhil, PhD, summarized in a joint email to this news organization.

Specifically, mothers who had breastfed their children at any time had an 11% lower risk for CVD, a 14% lower risk for CHD, a 12% lower risk for stroke, and a 17% lower risk of dying from CVD in later life, compared with other mothers.

On the basis of existing evidence, the researchers write, the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding until a baby is 6 months old, followed by breastfeeding plus complementary feeding until the baby is 2 years or older.

“We believe that [breastfeeding] benefits for the mother are communicated poorly,” said Dr. Tschiderer and Dr. Willeit, from the University of Innsbruck, Austria.

“Positive effects of breastfeeding on mothers need to be communicated effectively, awareness for breastfeeding recommendations needs to be raised, and interventions to promote and facilitate breastfeeding need to be implemented and reinforced,” the researchers conclude.
 

‘Should not be ignored’

Two cardiologists invited to comment, who were not involved with the research, noted that this study provides insight into an important topic.

“This is yet another body of evidence [and the largest population to date] to show that breastfeeding is protective for women and may show important beneficial effects in terms of CV risk,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said in an email.

“The risk reductions were 11% for CVD events and 14% for CHD events; these are impressive numbers,” said Dr. Mehran, from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The caveat,” she said, “is that these are data from several trials, but nonetheless, this is a very important observation that should not be ignored.”

The study did not address the definitive amount of time of breastfeeding and its correlation to the improvement of CVD risk, but it did show that for the lifetime duration, the longer the better.

“The beneficial effects,” she noted, “can be linked to hormones during breastfeeding, as well as weight loss associated with breastfeeding, and resetting the maternal metabolism, as the authors suggest.”

Clinicians and employers “must provide ways to educate women about breastfeeding and make it easy for women who are in the workplace to pump, and to provide them with resources” where possible, Dr. Mehran said.

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, noted that over the past several years, there has been intense interest in the possible health benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and child.

There is biologic plausibility for some of the possible maternal benefits because the favorable CV effects of both prolactin and oxytocin are only now being better understood, said Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“The current meta-analysis provides a large dataset that helps support the concept that breastfeeding may offer some cardiovascular benefit for the mother,” she agreed.

“However, ultimately more research will be necessary since this method of combining data across trials relies upon the robustness of the statistical method in each study,” Dr. O’Donoghue said. “I applaud the authors for shining a spotlight on this important topic.”

Although the benefits of breastfeeding appear to continue over time, “it is incredibly difficult for women to continue breastfeeding once they return to work,” she added. “Women in some countries outside the U.S. have an advantage due to longer durations of maternity leave.

“If we want to encourage breastfeeding,” Dr. O’Donoghue stressed, “we need to make sure that we put the right supports in place. Women need protected places to breastfeed in the workplace and places to store their milk. Most importantly, women need to be allowed dedicated time to make it happen.”
 

First large study of CVD in mothers

Emerging individual studies suggest that mothers who breastfeed may have a lower risk for CVD in later life, but studies have been inconsistent, and it is not clear if longer breastfeeding would strengthen this benefit, the authors note.

To examine this, they pooled data from the following eight studies (with study acronym, country, and baseline enrolment dates in brackets): 45&Up (Australia, 2006-2009), China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB, China, 2004-2008), European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC, multinational, 1992-2000), Gallagher et al. (China, 1989-1991), Nord-Trøndelag Health Survey 2 (HUNT2, Norway, 1995-1997), Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study (JPHC, Japan, 1990-1994), Nurses’ Health Study (NHS, U.S., 1986), and the Woman’s Health Initiative (WHI, U.S., 1993-1998).

On average, the women were 51.3 years old (range, 40-65 years) when they enrolled in the study, and they were followed for a median of 10.3 years (range, 7.9-20.9 years, in the individual studies).

On average, they had their first child at age 25 and had two to three children (mean, 2.3); 82% had breastfed at some point (ranging from 58% of women in the two U.S. studies to 97% in CKB and HUNT2).

The women had breastfed for a mean of 7.4 to 18.9 months during their lifetimes (except women in the CKB study, who had breastfed for a median of 24 months).

Among the 1,192,700 women, there were 54,226 incident CVD events, 26,913 incident CHD events, 30,843 incident strokes, and 10,766 deaths from CVD during follow-up.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include the fact that there could have been publication bias, since fewer than 10 studies were available for pooling. There was significant between-study heterogeneity for CVD, CHD, and stroke outcomes.

Participant-level data were also lacking, and breastfeeding was self-reported. There may have been unaccounted residual confounding, and the benefits of lifetime breastfeeding that is longer than 2 years are not clear, because few women in this population breastfed that long.

The research was funded by the Austrian Science Fund. The researchers and Dr. Mehran and Dr. O’Donoghue have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Patients looking to refill a prescription for apixaban (Eliquis) through CVS Caremark may be in for a surprise following its decision to exclude the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) from its formulary starting Jan. 1.

The move leaves just one DOAC, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), on CVS’ commercial formulary and is being assailed as the latest example of “nonmedical switching” used by health insurers to control costs.

In a letter to CVS Caremark backed by 14 provider and patient organizations, the nonprofit Partnership to Advance Cardiovascular Health (PACH) calls on the pharmacy chain to reverse its “dangerously disruptive” decision to force stable patients at high risk of cardiovascular events to switch anticoagulation, without an apparent option to be grandfathered into the new plan.

PACH president Dharmesh Patel, MD, Stern Cardiovascular Center, Memphis, called the formulary change “reckless and irresponsible, especially because the decision is not based in science and evidence, but on budgets. Patients and their health care providers, not insurance companies, need to be trusted to determine what medication is best,” he said in a statement.

Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of Baptist Health Paducah, Kentucky, said that, as chair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardiovascular Team Section, he and other organizations have met with CVS Caremark medical leadership to advocate for patients and to understand the company’s perspective.

“The underlying driver is cost,” he told this news organization.

Current guidelines recommend DOACs in general for a variety of indications, including to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to prevent deep vein thrombosis, but there are select instances where a particular DOAC might be more appropriate, he observed.

“Apixaban may be better for a patient with a history of GI bleeding because there’s less GI bleeding, but the guidelines don’t necessarily spell those things out,” Dr. Beavers said. “That’s where the clinician should advocate for their patient and, unfortunately, they are making their decision strictly based off the guidelines.”

Requests to speak with medical officers at CVS Caremark went unanswered, but its executive director of communications, Christina Peaslee, told this news organization that the formulary decision “maintains clinically appropriate, cost-effective prescription coverage” for its clients and members.

“Both the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society and 2021 CHEST guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for treatment of various cardiology conditions such as atrial fibrillation, but neither list a specific agent as preferred – showing that consensus clinical guidelines do not favor one over the other,” she said in an email. “Further, Xarelto has more FDA-approved indications than Eliquis (e.g., Xarelto is approved for a reduction in risk of major CV events in patients with CAD or PAD) in addition to all the same FDA indications as Eliquis.”

Ms. Peaslee pointed out that all formulary changes are evaluated by an external medical expert specializing in the disease state, followed by review and approval by an independent national Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee.

The decision to exclude apixaban is also limited to a “subset of commercial drug lists,” she said, although specifics on which plans and the number of affected patients were not forthcoming.

The choice of DOAC is a timely question in cardiology, with recent studies suggesting an advantage for apixaban over rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism, as well as reducing the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events in atrial fibrillation.

Ms. Peaslee said CVS Caremark closely monitors medical literature for relevant clinical trial data and that most clients allow reasonable formulary exceptions when justified. “This formulary exceptions process has been successfully used for changes of this type and allows patients to get a medication that is safe and effective, as determined by their prescriber.”

The company will also continue to provide “robust, personalized outreach to the small number of members who will need to switch to an alternative medication,” she added.

Dr. Beavers said negotiations with CVS are still in the early stages, but, in the meantime, the ACC is providing health care providers with tools, such as drug copay cards and electronic prior authorizations, to help ensure patients don’t have gaps in coverage.

In a Jan. 14 news release addressing the formulary change, ACC notes that a patient’s pharmacy can also request a one-time override when trying to fill a nonpreferred DOAC in January to buy time if switching medications with their clinician or requesting a formulary exception.

During discussions with CVS Caremark, it says the ACC and the American Society of Hematology “underscored the negative impacts of this decision on patients currently taking one of the nonpreferred DOACs and on those who have previously tried rivaroxaban and changed medications.”

The groups also highlighted difficulties with other prior authorization programs in terms of the need for dedicated staff and time away from direct patient care.

“The ACC and ASH will continue discussions with CVS Caremark regarding the burden on clinicians and the effect of the formulary decision on patient access,” the release says.

In its letter to CVS, PACH argues that the apixaban exclusion will disproportionately affect historically disadvantaged patients, leaving those who can least afford the change with limited options. Notably, no generic is available for either apixaban or rivaroxaban.

The group also highlights a 2019 national poll, in which nearly 40% of patients who had their medication switched were so frustrated that they stopped their medication altogether.

PACH has an online petition against nonmedical switching, which at press time had garnered 2,126 signatures.

One signee, Jan Griffin, who survived bilateral pulmonary embolisms, writes that she has been on Eliquis [apixaban] successfully since her hospital discharge. “Now, as of midnight, Caremark apparently knows better than my hematologist as to what blood thinner is better for me and will no longer cover my Eliquis prescription. This is criminal, immoral, and unethical. #StopTheSwitch.”

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

Patients looking to refill a prescription for apixaban (Eliquis) through CVS Caremark may be in for a surprise following its decision to exclude the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) from its formulary starting Jan. 1.

The move leaves just one DOAC, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), on CVS’ commercial formulary and is being assailed as the latest example of “nonmedical switching” used by health insurers to control costs.

In a letter to CVS Caremark backed by 14 provider and patient organizations, the nonprofit Partnership to Advance Cardiovascular Health (PACH) calls on the pharmacy chain to reverse its “dangerously disruptive” decision to force stable patients at high risk of cardiovascular events to switch anticoagulation, without an apparent option to be grandfathered into the new plan.

PACH president Dharmesh Patel, MD, Stern Cardiovascular Center, Memphis, called the formulary change “reckless and irresponsible, especially because the decision is not based in science and evidence, but on budgets. Patients and their health care providers, not insurance companies, need to be trusted to determine what medication is best,” he said in a statement.

Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of Baptist Health Paducah, Kentucky, said that, as chair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardiovascular Team Section, he and other organizations have met with CVS Caremark medical leadership to advocate for patients and to understand the company’s perspective.

“The underlying driver is cost,” he told this news organization.

Current guidelines recommend DOACs in general for a variety of indications, including to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to prevent deep vein thrombosis, but there are select instances where a particular DOAC might be more appropriate, he observed.

“Apixaban may be better for a patient with a history of GI bleeding because there’s less GI bleeding, but the guidelines don’t necessarily spell those things out,” Dr. Beavers said. “That’s where the clinician should advocate for their patient and, unfortunately, they are making their decision strictly based off the guidelines.”

Requests to speak with medical officers at CVS Caremark went unanswered, but its executive director of communications, Christina Peaslee, told this news organization that the formulary decision “maintains clinically appropriate, cost-effective prescription coverage” for its clients and members.

“Both the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society and 2021 CHEST guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for treatment of various cardiology conditions such as atrial fibrillation, but neither list a specific agent as preferred – showing that consensus clinical guidelines do not favor one over the other,” she said in an email. “Further, Xarelto has more FDA-approved indications than Eliquis (e.g., Xarelto is approved for a reduction in risk of major CV events in patients with CAD or PAD) in addition to all the same FDA indications as Eliquis.”

Ms. Peaslee pointed out that all formulary changes are evaluated by an external medical expert specializing in the disease state, followed by review and approval by an independent national Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee.

The decision to exclude apixaban is also limited to a “subset of commercial drug lists,” she said, although specifics on which plans and the number of affected patients were not forthcoming.

The choice of DOAC is a timely question in cardiology, with recent studies suggesting an advantage for apixaban over rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism, as well as reducing the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events in atrial fibrillation.

Ms. Peaslee said CVS Caremark closely monitors medical literature for relevant clinical trial data and that most clients allow reasonable formulary exceptions when justified. “This formulary exceptions process has been successfully used for changes of this type and allows patients to get a medication that is safe and effective, as determined by their prescriber.”

The company will also continue to provide “robust, personalized outreach to the small number of members who will need to switch to an alternative medication,” she added.

Dr. Beavers said negotiations with CVS are still in the early stages, but, in the meantime, the ACC is providing health care providers with tools, such as drug copay cards and electronic prior authorizations, to help ensure patients don’t have gaps in coverage.

In a Jan. 14 news release addressing the formulary change, ACC notes that a patient’s pharmacy can also request a one-time override when trying to fill a nonpreferred DOAC in January to buy time if switching medications with their clinician or requesting a formulary exception.

During discussions with CVS Caremark, it says the ACC and the American Society of Hematology “underscored the negative impacts of this decision on patients currently taking one of the nonpreferred DOACs and on those who have previously tried rivaroxaban and changed medications.”

The groups also highlighted difficulties with other prior authorization programs in terms of the need for dedicated staff and time away from direct patient care.

“The ACC and ASH will continue discussions with CVS Caremark regarding the burden on clinicians and the effect of the formulary decision on patient access,” the release says.

In its letter to CVS, PACH argues that the apixaban exclusion will disproportionately affect historically disadvantaged patients, leaving those who can least afford the change with limited options. Notably, no generic is available for either apixaban or rivaroxaban.

The group also highlights a 2019 national poll, in which nearly 40% of patients who had their medication switched were so frustrated that they stopped their medication altogether.

PACH has an online petition against nonmedical switching, which at press time had garnered 2,126 signatures.

One signee, Jan Griffin, who survived bilateral pulmonary embolisms, writes that she has been on Eliquis [apixaban] successfully since her hospital discharge. “Now, as of midnight, Caremark apparently knows better than my hematologist as to what blood thinner is better for me and will no longer cover my Eliquis prescription. This is criminal, immoral, and unethical. #StopTheSwitch.”

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

Patients looking to refill a prescription for apixaban (Eliquis) through CVS Caremark may be in for a surprise following its decision to exclude the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) from its formulary starting Jan. 1.

The move leaves just one DOAC, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), on CVS’ commercial formulary and is being assailed as the latest example of “nonmedical switching” used by health insurers to control costs.

In a letter to CVS Caremark backed by 14 provider and patient organizations, the nonprofit Partnership to Advance Cardiovascular Health (PACH) calls on the pharmacy chain to reverse its “dangerously disruptive” decision to force stable patients at high risk of cardiovascular events to switch anticoagulation, without an apparent option to be grandfathered into the new plan.

PACH president Dharmesh Patel, MD, Stern Cardiovascular Center, Memphis, called the formulary change “reckless and irresponsible, especially because the decision is not based in science and evidence, but on budgets. Patients and their health care providers, not insurance companies, need to be trusted to determine what medication is best,” he said in a statement.

Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of Baptist Health Paducah, Kentucky, said that, as chair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardiovascular Team Section, he and other organizations have met with CVS Caremark medical leadership to advocate for patients and to understand the company’s perspective.

“The underlying driver is cost,” he told this news organization.

Current guidelines recommend DOACs in general for a variety of indications, including to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to prevent deep vein thrombosis, but there are select instances where a particular DOAC might be more appropriate, he observed.

“Apixaban may be better for a patient with a history of GI bleeding because there’s less GI bleeding, but the guidelines don’t necessarily spell those things out,” Dr. Beavers said. “That’s where the clinician should advocate for their patient and, unfortunately, they are making their decision strictly based off the guidelines.”

Requests to speak with medical officers at CVS Caremark went unanswered, but its executive director of communications, Christina Peaslee, told this news organization that the formulary decision “maintains clinically appropriate, cost-effective prescription coverage” for its clients and members.

“Both the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society and 2021 CHEST guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for treatment of various cardiology conditions such as atrial fibrillation, but neither list a specific agent as preferred – showing that consensus clinical guidelines do not favor one over the other,” she said in an email. “Further, Xarelto has more FDA-approved indications than Eliquis (e.g., Xarelto is approved for a reduction in risk of major CV events in patients with CAD or PAD) in addition to all the same FDA indications as Eliquis.”

Ms. Peaslee pointed out that all formulary changes are evaluated by an external medical expert specializing in the disease state, followed by review and approval by an independent national Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee.

The decision to exclude apixaban is also limited to a “subset of commercial drug lists,” she said, although specifics on which plans and the number of affected patients were not forthcoming.

The choice of DOAC is a timely question in cardiology, with recent studies suggesting an advantage for apixaban over rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism, as well as reducing the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events in atrial fibrillation.

Ms. Peaslee said CVS Caremark closely monitors medical literature for relevant clinical trial data and that most clients allow reasonable formulary exceptions when justified. “This formulary exceptions process has been successfully used for changes of this type and allows patients to get a medication that is safe and effective, as determined by their prescriber.”

The company will also continue to provide “robust, personalized outreach to the small number of members who will need to switch to an alternative medication,” she added.

Dr. Beavers said negotiations with CVS are still in the early stages, but, in the meantime, the ACC is providing health care providers with tools, such as drug copay cards and electronic prior authorizations, to help ensure patients don’t have gaps in coverage.

In a Jan. 14 news release addressing the formulary change, ACC notes that a patient’s pharmacy can also request a one-time override when trying to fill a nonpreferred DOAC in January to buy time if switching medications with their clinician or requesting a formulary exception.

During discussions with CVS Caremark, it says the ACC and the American Society of Hematology “underscored the negative impacts of this decision on patients currently taking one of the nonpreferred DOACs and on those who have previously tried rivaroxaban and changed medications.”

The groups also highlighted difficulties with other prior authorization programs in terms of the need for dedicated staff and time away from direct patient care.

“The ACC and ASH will continue discussions with CVS Caremark regarding the burden on clinicians and the effect of the formulary decision on patient access,” the release says.

In its letter to CVS, PACH argues that the apixaban exclusion will disproportionately affect historically disadvantaged patients, leaving those who can least afford the change with limited options. Notably, no generic is available for either apixaban or rivaroxaban.

The group also highlights a 2019 national poll, in which nearly 40% of patients who had their medication switched were so frustrated that they stopped their medication altogether.

PACH has an online petition against nonmedical switching, which at press time had garnered 2,126 signatures.

One signee, Jan Griffin, who survived bilateral pulmonary embolisms, writes that she has been on Eliquis [apixaban] successfully since her hospital discharge. “Now, as of midnight, Caremark apparently knows better than my hematologist as to what blood thinner is better for me and will no longer cover my Eliquis prescription. This is criminal, immoral, and unethical. #StopTheSwitch.”

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