Acute Coronary Syndromes

Initiating treatment with the interleukin-12/23p40–targeting monoclonal antibody ustekinumab may trigger early severe cardiovascular events (SCEs) in susceptible patients, according to a large French case-time-control analysis.

Investigators led by Florence Poizeau, MD, of the department of dermatology at Rennes (France) University Hospital, found high-risk patients had more than four times the risk of an acute SCE in the 6 months after starting treatment. Although ustekinumab (Stelara) effectively treats moderate to severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and Crohn’s disease (indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration), the early months after ustekinumab initiation may be associated with atherosclerotic plaque destabilization via the inhibition of helper T cell subtype 17, the group reported in JAMA Dermatology.

The observational study drew on France’s 66 million–registrant health insurance database to identify all patients exposed to ustekinumab between April 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2016. Classified by high or low cardiovascular risk level, ustekinumab recipients served as their own controls, being compared during two time windows: the risk period covered the 6 months after initiating treatment and leading up to the SCE, defined as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stroke, while a reference period spanned the 6-12 months leading up to the risk period.

In the statistical analysis of 9,290 ustekinumab-exposed patients (mean age 43 years, 52% male), conducted from September 2017 to July 2018, 7,588 (82%) received ustekinumab for psoriasis or PsA, and 724 (8%) for Crohn’s disease. (The remaining indications were for psoriasis or PsA and Crohn’s disease, or were undetermined.)

Of these patients, 98 experienced SCEs (52 with ACS admitted to the ICU and 46 with strokes). In patients deemed at high cardiovascular risk – those with two risk factors or a personal history of atherosclerotic disease – there was a statistically significant association between starting ustekinumab and SCE occurrence, for an odds ratio of 4.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.19-14.59). In contrast, no such association emerged in ustekinumab users at low cardiovascular risk, for an OR of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.03-3.13). The OR for all was 2.41 (95% CI, 0.83-7.01).

Of the 98 patients included in the final case-time-control analysis, 62 were men (63%), the median age was 57 years, and 76 (78%) were at high cardiovascular risk. A total of 89 patients (91%) had psoriasis, four (4%) had Crohn’s disease, and two (2%) had both.

The investigators also did an analysis including these 98 patients plus 13 patients with ACS who were not hospitalized in an ICU, and 68 with unstable angina, for a total of 179. In this group, the ORs for SCE were 1.75 (95% CI, 0.86-3.56) overall, compared with 3.20 (95% CI, 1.29-7.92) among those at high cardiovascular risk and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.02-1.69) among those at low cardiovascular risk.

The Rennes investigators’ decision to focus on early SCEs stemmed in part from a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that reported a possible excess of early SCEs in adults exposed to anti–IL-12/23p40 antibodies, which at that time included the now-discontinued experimental antibody briakinumab. Briakinumab trials were aborted and the drug was never brought to market, leaving ustekinumab as the only antibody of this type.

The finding of “an association between ustekinumab initiation and SCE among patients with cardiovascular risk factors suggests the need for caution regarding the prescription of ustekinumab in this population,” Dr. Poizeau and colleagues wrote. The risk “seems to concern patients with psoriasis” rather than Crohn’s disease, which may be related to the older age and greater cardiovascular risk of the former. “A close collaboration between cardiologists and biologic prescribers could be beneficial to evaluate the risk of SCEs for patients who are receiving ustekinumab,” they added, recommending further research into the physiopathological mechanisms of action.

Offering a U.S. clinician’s perspective on the French study, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, called the findings “unique and interesting with very robust odds ratios. These posttreatment associations have actually been a big area of research over the past decade but not with such defined time periods.”

No significant increases in risk have been seen with other biologics, Dr. Fernandez added, with the exception of briakinumab. “But still, the current study does not definitively answer the question whether ustekinumab can trigger acute events within 6 months of treatment. There’s smoke, but we haven’t clearly seen a fire.”

As to ustekinumab’s possible pathogenic mechanism of action, Dr. Fernandez pointed to data suggesting that IL-17A can be stabilizing to atherosclerotic plaques. “So there’s a hypothesis that blocking the 17/23 pathway may destabilize plaques and make patients more prone to acute cardiovascular events.”

In other comments from clinicians not involved in the study, Seoyoung Kim, MD, ScD, MSCE, director of the program in rheumatologic, immunologic, and musculoskeletal pharmacoepidemiology (PRIME) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that, while the investigators controlled for the trend over time and their design choice included time-fixed covariates such as age, sex, and family history within individuals, the case-crossover study could not control for time-varying confounders within individuals.

“In other words, it’s possible that some of the patients had a lot more disease activity and systemic inflammation and used more NSAIDs, steroids, and other medications potentially related to cardiovascular risk a few months before they started ustekinumab, compared with 6-12 months prior,“ Dr. Kim said in an interview. “I would be curious to know if they would find the same thing or not if they studied a different type of biologic drug.”

She also pointed out that the number of outcomes overall was small, leading to imprecise estimates and wide confidence intervals.

Last year Dr. Kim and associates published a study comparing ustekinumab with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy in younger psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients and found no difference between the two groups in major cardiovascular events or atrial fibrillation.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has more reservations about the findings. “The Poizeau study was methodologically flawed, making the results unreliable,” he said in an interview. “There is a breadth of data from clinical trials and observational studies that do not demonstrate an increased risk of major acute cardiovascular events with ustekinumab and the results of the Poizeau study should not impact clinical practice.”

In an interview, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology and chief for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that, in his view, the investigators used early reports of a small number cardiovascular events to look at the issue from a faulty perspective, and hence their findings would have no impact on his clinical practice.

“This study looked at the issue incorrectly. It looked at people put on drug who already had two risk factors for heart attack. And psoriasis itself is a third risk factor,” he said. “So lo and behold, big surprise, some of them had cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Lebwohl noted that a wealth of carefully compiled data has found no increase over time in cardiovascular events with this drug in psoriasis patients. The risk of cardiovascular events actually goes down with time because of the drug’s anti-inflammatory effects.

Dr. Fernandez takes a more positive view of the French findings. “The data certainly support the need for further research in this area,” he said in an interview, “and in the meantime this paper will probably make me extra cautious in using ustekinumab in those at significant risk.”

The French study was supported by a grant from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety. Dr. Poizeau and seven coauthors had no disclosures. The remaining five reported disclosures that included receiving fees from AbbVie, Admiral, Amgen, Baxalta, Cologne, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Mylan, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, as well as grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer outside the submitted work, and personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, and Lilly during the conduct of the study. Dr. Fernandez reported consulting work for AbbVie and research grants from Novartis. Dr. Kim disclosed research grants from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and from Pfizer, Abbvie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb for unrelated studies. Dr. Gelfand reported varying financial ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Biologics, Regeneron, UCB, Sanofi, Pfizer, Celgene, OrthoDermatolgics, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He is copatent holder of a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Dr. Lebwohl reported unpaid consulting for most manufacturers of psoriasis drugs, with all fees going directly to Mount Sinai.

Source: Poizeau F et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Sep 9. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2977.
 

Initiating treatment with the interleukin-12/23p40–targeting monoclonal antibody ustekinumab may trigger early severe cardiovascular events (SCEs) in susceptible patients, according to a large French case-time-control analysis.

Investigators led by Florence Poizeau, MD, of the department of dermatology at Rennes (France) University Hospital, found high-risk patients had more than four times the risk of an acute SCE in the 6 months after starting treatment. Although ustekinumab (Stelara) effectively treats moderate to severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and Crohn’s disease (indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration), the early months after ustekinumab initiation may be associated with atherosclerotic plaque destabilization via the inhibition of helper T cell subtype 17, the group reported in JAMA Dermatology.

The observational study drew on France’s 66 million–registrant health insurance database to identify all patients exposed to ustekinumab between April 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2016. Classified by high or low cardiovascular risk level, ustekinumab recipients served as their own controls, being compared during two time windows: the risk period covered the 6 months after initiating treatment and leading up to the SCE, defined as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stroke, while a reference period spanned the 6-12 months leading up to the risk period.

In the statistical analysis of 9,290 ustekinumab-exposed patients (mean age 43 years, 52% male), conducted from September 2017 to July 2018, 7,588 (82%) received ustekinumab for psoriasis or PsA, and 724 (8%) for Crohn’s disease. (The remaining indications were for psoriasis or PsA and Crohn’s disease, or were undetermined.)

Of these patients, 98 experienced SCEs (52 with ACS admitted to the ICU and 46 with strokes). In patients deemed at high cardiovascular risk – those with two risk factors or a personal history of atherosclerotic disease – there was a statistically significant association between starting ustekinumab and SCE occurrence, for an odds ratio of 4.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.19-14.59). In contrast, no such association emerged in ustekinumab users at low cardiovascular risk, for an OR of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.03-3.13). The OR for all was 2.41 (95% CI, 0.83-7.01).

Of the 98 patients included in the final case-time-control analysis, 62 were men (63%), the median age was 57 years, and 76 (78%) were at high cardiovascular risk. A total of 89 patients (91%) had psoriasis, four (4%) had Crohn’s disease, and two (2%) had both.

The investigators also did an analysis including these 98 patients plus 13 patients with ACS who were not hospitalized in an ICU, and 68 with unstable angina, for a total of 179. In this group, the ORs for SCE were 1.75 (95% CI, 0.86-3.56) overall, compared with 3.20 (95% CI, 1.29-7.92) among those at high cardiovascular risk and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.02-1.69) among those at low cardiovascular risk.

The Rennes investigators’ decision to focus on early SCEs stemmed in part from a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that reported a possible excess of early SCEs in adults exposed to anti–IL-12/23p40 antibodies, which at that time included the now-discontinued experimental antibody briakinumab. Briakinumab trials were aborted and the drug was never brought to market, leaving ustekinumab as the only antibody of this type.

The finding of “an association between ustekinumab initiation and SCE among patients with cardiovascular risk factors suggests the need for caution regarding the prescription of ustekinumab in this population,” Dr. Poizeau and colleagues wrote. The risk “seems to concern patients with psoriasis” rather than Crohn’s disease, which may be related to the older age and greater cardiovascular risk of the former. “A close collaboration between cardiologists and biologic prescribers could be beneficial to evaluate the risk of SCEs for patients who are receiving ustekinumab,” they added, recommending further research into the physiopathological mechanisms of action.

Offering a U.S. clinician’s perspective on the French study, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, called the findings “unique and interesting with very robust odds ratios. These posttreatment associations have actually been a big area of research over the past decade but not with such defined time periods.”

No significant increases in risk have been seen with other biologics, Dr. Fernandez added, with the exception of briakinumab. “But still, the current study does not definitively answer the question whether ustekinumab can trigger acute events within 6 months of treatment. There’s smoke, but we haven’t clearly seen a fire.”

As to ustekinumab’s possible pathogenic mechanism of action, Dr. Fernandez pointed to data suggesting that IL-17A can be stabilizing to atherosclerotic plaques. “So there’s a hypothesis that blocking the 17/23 pathway may destabilize plaques and make patients more prone to acute cardiovascular events.”

In other comments from clinicians not involved in the study, Seoyoung Kim, MD, ScD, MSCE, director of the program in rheumatologic, immunologic, and musculoskeletal pharmacoepidemiology (PRIME) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that, while the investigators controlled for the trend over time and their design choice included time-fixed covariates such as age, sex, and family history within individuals, the case-crossover study could not control for time-varying confounders within individuals.

“In other words, it’s possible that some of the patients had a lot more disease activity and systemic inflammation and used more NSAIDs, steroids, and other medications potentially related to cardiovascular risk a few months before they started ustekinumab, compared with 6-12 months prior,“ Dr. Kim said in an interview. “I would be curious to know if they would find the same thing or not if they studied a different type of biologic drug.”

She also pointed out that the number of outcomes overall was small, leading to imprecise estimates and wide confidence intervals.

Last year Dr. Kim and associates published a study comparing ustekinumab with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy in younger psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients and found no difference between the two groups in major cardiovascular events or atrial fibrillation.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has more reservations about the findings. “The Poizeau study was methodologically flawed, making the results unreliable,” he said in an interview. “There is a breadth of data from clinical trials and observational studies that do not demonstrate an increased risk of major acute cardiovascular events with ustekinumab and the results of the Poizeau study should not impact clinical practice.”

In an interview, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology and chief for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that, in his view, the investigators used early reports of a small number cardiovascular events to look at the issue from a faulty perspective, and hence their findings would have no impact on his clinical practice.

“This study looked at the issue incorrectly. It looked at people put on drug who already had two risk factors for heart attack. And psoriasis itself is a third risk factor,” he said. “So lo and behold, big surprise, some of them had cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Lebwohl noted that a wealth of carefully compiled data has found no increase over time in cardiovascular events with this drug in psoriasis patients. The risk of cardiovascular events actually goes down with time because of the drug’s anti-inflammatory effects.

Dr. Fernandez takes a more positive view of the French findings. “The data certainly support the need for further research in this area,” he said in an interview, “and in the meantime this paper will probably make me extra cautious in using ustekinumab in those at significant risk.”

The French study was supported by a grant from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety. Dr. Poizeau and seven coauthors had no disclosures. The remaining five reported disclosures that included receiving fees from AbbVie, Admiral, Amgen, Baxalta, Cologne, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Mylan, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, as well as grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer outside the submitted work, and personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, and Lilly during the conduct of the study. Dr. Fernandez reported consulting work for AbbVie and research grants from Novartis. Dr. Kim disclosed research grants from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and from Pfizer, Abbvie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb for unrelated studies. Dr. Gelfand reported varying financial ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Biologics, Regeneron, UCB, Sanofi, Pfizer, Celgene, OrthoDermatolgics, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He is copatent holder of a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Dr. Lebwohl reported unpaid consulting for most manufacturers of psoriasis drugs, with all fees going directly to Mount Sinai.

Source: Poizeau F et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Sep 9. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2977.
 

Initiating treatment with the interleukin-12/23p40–targeting monoclonal antibody ustekinumab may trigger early severe cardiovascular events (SCEs) in susceptible patients, according to a large French case-time-control analysis.

Investigators led by Florence Poizeau, MD, of the department of dermatology at Rennes (France) University Hospital, found high-risk patients had more than four times the risk of an acute SCE in the 6 months after starting treatment. Although ustekinumab (Stelara) effectively treats moderate to severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and Crohn’s disease (indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration), the early months after ustekinumab initiation may be associated with atherosclerotic plaque destabilization via the inhibition of helper T cell subtype 17, the group reported in JAMA Dermatology.

The observational study drew on France’s 66 million–registrant health insurance database to identify all patients exposed to ustekinumab between April 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2016. Classified by high or low cardiovascular risk level, ustekinumab recipients served as their own controls, being compared during two time windows: the risk period covered the 6 months after initiating treatment and leading up to the SCE, defined as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stroke, while a reference period spanned the 6-12 months leading up to the risk period.

In the statistical analysis of 9,290 ustekinumab-exposed patients (mean age 43 years, 52% male), conducted from September 2017 to July 2018, 7,588 (82%) received ustekinumab for psoriasis or PsA, and 724 (8%) for Crohn’s disease. (The remaining indications were for psoriasis or PsA and Crohn’s disease, or were undetermined.)

Of these patients, 98 experienced SCEs (52 with ACS admitted to the ICU and 46 with strokes). In patients deemed at high cardiovascular risk – those with two risk factors or a personal history of atherosclerotic disease – there was a statistically significant association between starting ustekinumab and SCE occurrence, for an odds ratio of 4.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.19-14.59). In contrast, no such association emerged in ustekinumab users at low cardiovascular risk, for an OR of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.03-3.13). The OR for all was 2.41 (95% CI, 0.83-7.01).

Of the 98 patients included in the final case-time-control analysis, 62 were men (63%), the median age was 57 years, and 76 (78%) were at high cardiovascular risk. A total of 89 patients (91%) had psoriasis, four (4%) had Crohn’s disease, and two (2%) had both.

The investigators also did an analysis including these 98 patients plus 13 patients with ACS who were not hospitalized in an ICU, and 68 with unstable angina, for a total of 179. In this group, the ORs for SCE were 1.75 (95% CI, 0.86-3.56) overall, compared with 3.20 (95% CI, 1.29-7.92) among those at high cardiovascular risk and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.02-1.69) among those at low cardiovascular risk.

The Rennes investigators’ decision to focus on early SCEs stemmed in part from a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that reported a possible excess of early SCEs in adults exposed to anti–IL-12/23p40 antibodies, which at that time included the now-discontinued experimental antibody briakinumab. Briakinumab trials were aborted and the drug was never brought to market, leaving ustekinumab as the only antibody of this type.

The finding of “an association between ustekinumab initiation and SCE among patients with cardiovascular risk factors suggests the need for caution regarding the prescription of ustekinumab in this population,” Dr. Poizeau and colleagues wrote. The risk “seems to concern patients with psoriasis” rather than Crohn’s disease, which may be related to the older age and greater cardiovascular risk of the former. “A close collaboration between cardiologists and biologic prescribers could be beneficial to evaluate the risk of SCEs for patients who are receiving ustekinumab,” they added, recommending further research into the physiopathological mechanisms of action.

Offering a U.S. clinician’s perspective on the French study, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, called the findings “unique and interesting with very robust odds ratios. These posttreatment associations have actually been a big area of research over the past decade but not with such defined time periods.”

No significant increases in risk have been seen with other biologics, Dr. Fernandez added, with the exception of briakinumab. “But still, the current study does not definitively answer the question whether ustekinumab can trigger acute events within 6 months of treatment. There’s smoke, but we haven’t clearly seen a fire.”

As to ustekinumab’s possible pathogenic mechanism of action, Dr. Fernandez pointed to data suggesting that IL-17A can be stabilizing to atherosclerotic plaques. “So there’s a hypothesis that blocking the 17/23 pathway may destabilize plaques and make patients more prone to acute cardiovascular events.”

In other comments from clinicians not involved in the study, Seoyoung Kim, MD, ScD, MSCE, director of the program in rheumatologic, immunologic, and musculoskeletal pharmacoepidemiology (PRIME) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that, while the investigators controlled for the trend over time and their design choice included time-fixed covariates such as age, sex, and family history within individuals, the case-crossover study could not control for time-varying confounders within individuals.

“In other words, it’s possible that some of the patients had a lot more disease activity and systemic inflammation and used more NSAIDs, steroids, and other medications potentially related to cardiovascular risk a few months before they started ustekinumab, compared with 6-12 months prior,“ Dr. Kim said in an interview. “I would be curious to know if they would find the same thing or not if they studied a different type of biologic drug.”

She also pointed out that the number of outcomes overall was small, leading to imprecise estimates and wide confidence intervals.

Last year Dr. Kim and associates published a study comparing ustekinumab with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy in younger psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients and found no difference between the two groups in major cardiovascular events or atrial fibrillation.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has more reservations about the findings. “The Poizeau study was methodologically flawed, making the results unreliable,” he said in an interview. “There is a breadth of data from clinical trials and observational studies that do not demonstrate an increased risk of major acute cardiovascular events with ustekinumab and the results of the Poizeau study should not impact clinical practice.”

In an interview, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology and chief for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that, in his view, the investigators used early reports of a small number cardiovascular events to look at the issue from a faulty perspective, and hence their findings would have no impact on his clinical practice.

“This study looked at the issue incorrectly. It looked at people put on drug who already had two risk factors for heart attack. And psoriasis itself is a third risk factor,” he said. “So lo and behold, big surprise, some of them had cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Lebwohl noted that a wealth of carefully compiled data has found no increase over time in cardiovascular events with this drug in psoriasis patients. The risk of cardiovascular events actually goes down with time because of the drug’s anti-inflammatory effects.

Dr. Fernandez takes a more positive view of the French findings. “The data certainly support the need for further research in this area,” he said in an interview, “and in the meantime this paper will probably make me extra cautious in using ustekinumab in those at significant risk.”

The French study was supported by a grant from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety. Dr. Poizeau and seven coauthors had no disclosures. The remaining five reported disclosures that included receiving fees from AbbVie, Admiral, Amgen, Baxalta, Cologne, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Mylan, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, as well as grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer outside the submitted work, and personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, and Lilly during the conduct of the study. Dr. Fernandez reported consulting work for AbbVie and research grants from Novartis. Dr. Kim disclosed research grants from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and from Pfizer, Abbvie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb for unrelated studies. Dr. Gelfand reported varying financial ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Biologics, Regeneron, UCB, Sanofi, Pfizer, Celgene, OrthoDermatolgics, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He is copatent holder of a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Dr. Lebwohl reported unpaid consulting for most manufacturers of psoriasis drugs, with all fees going directly to Mount Sinai.

Source: Poizeau F et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Sep 9. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2977.
 

The earlier the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine is initiated after a myocardial infarction (MI) the greater the benefit, a new COLCOT analysis suggests.

The parent trial was conducted in patients with a recent MI because of the intense inflammation present at that time, and added colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care within 30 days following MI.

As previously reported, colchicine significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring revascularization – by 23% compared with placebo.

This new analysis shows the risk was reduced by 48% in patients receiving colchicine within 3 days of an MI (4.3% vs. 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.84, P = .007).

Risk of a secondary efficacy end point – CV death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, or stroke – was reduced by 45% over an average follow up of 22.7 months (3.3% vs 6.1%; adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95, P = .031).

“We believe that our results support an early, in-hospital initiation of adjunctive colchicine for post-MI prevention,” Nadia Bouabdallaoui, MD, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, said during an online session devoted to colchicine at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

Session moderator Massimo Imazio, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, said the improved outcomes suggest that earlier treatment is better – a finding that parallels his own experience using colchicine in patients with pericarditis.

“This substudy is very important because this is probably also the year in cardiovascular applications [that] early use of the drug could improve outcomes,” he said.

Positive data have been accumulating for colchicine from COLCOT, LoDoCo, and, most recently, the LoDoCo2 trial, even as another anti-inflammatory drug, methotrexate, flamed out as secondary prevention in the CIRT trial.

The new COLCOT substudy included 4,661 of the 4,745 original patients and examined treatment initiation using three strata: within 0-3 days (n = 1,193), 4-7 days (n = 720), and 8-30 days (n = 2,748). Patients who received treatment within 3 days were slightly younger, more likely to be smokers, and to have a shorter time from MI to randomization (2.1 days vs 5.1 days vs. 20.8 days, respectively).

In the subset receiving treatment within 3 days, those assigned to colchicine had the same number of cardiac deaths as those given placebo (2 vs. 2) but fewer resuscitated cardiac arrests (1 vs. 3), MIs (17 vs. 29), strokes (1 vs. 5), and urgent hospitalizations for angina requiring revascularization (6 vs. 17).

“A larger trial might have allowed for a better assessment of individual endpoints and subgroups,” observed Bouabdallaoui.

Although there is growing support for colchicine, experts caution that the drug many not be for everyone. In COLCOT, 1 in 10 patients were unable to tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal (GI) issues.
 

Pharmacogenomics substudy

A second COLCOT substudy aimed to identify genetic markers predictive of colchicine response and to gain insights into the mechanisms behind this response. It included 767 patients treated with colchicine and another 755 treated with placebo – or about one-third the patients in the original trial.

A genome-wide association study did not find a significant association for the primary CV endpoint, although a prespecified subgroup analysis in men identified an interesting region on chromosome 9 (variant: rs10811106), which just missed reaching genomewide significance, said Marie-Pierre Dubé, PhD, director of the Université de Montréal Beaulieu-Saucier Pharmacogenomics Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute.

In addition, the genomewide analysis found two significant regions for GI events: one on chromosome 6 (variant: rs6916345) and one on chromosome 10 (variant: rs74795203).

For each of the identified regions, the researchers then tested the effect of the allele in the placebo group and the interaction between the genetic variant and treatment with colchicine. For the chromosome 9 region in males, there was no effect in the placebo group and a significant interaction in the colchicine group.

For the significant GI event findings, there was a small effect for the chromosome 6 region in the placebo group and a very significant interaction with colchicine, Dubé said. Similarly, there was no effect for the chromosome 10 region in the placebo group and a significant interaction with colchicine.

Additional analyses in stratified patient populations showed that males with the protective allele (CC) for the chromosome 9 region represented 83% of the population. The primary CV endpoint occurred in 3.2% of these men treated with colchicine and 6.3% treated with placebo (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 - 0.86).

For the gastrointestinal events, 25% of patients carried the risk allele (AA) for the chromosome 6 region and 36.9% of these had GI events when treated with colchicine versus 18.6% when treated with placebo (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.57-3.72).

Similarly, 13% of individuals carried one or two copies of the risk allele (AG+GG) for the chromosome 10 region and the risk of GI events in these was nearly four times higher with colchicine (47.1% vs. 18.9%; HR, 3.98; 95% CI 2.24-7.07).

Functional genomic analyses of the identified regions were also performed and showed that the chromosome 9 locus overlaps with the SAXO1 gene, a stabilizer of axonemal microtubules 1.

“The leading variant at this locus (rs10811106 C allele) correlated with the expression of the HAUS6 gene, which is involved in microtubule generation from existing microtubules, and may interact with the effect of colchicine, which is known to inhibit microtubule formation,” observed Dubé. 

Also, the chromosome 6 locus associated with gastrointestinal events was colocalizing with the Crohn’s disease locus, adding further support for this region.

“The results support potential personalized approaches to inflammation reduction for cardiovascular prevention,” Dubé said.

This is a post hoc subgroup analysis, however, and replication is necessary, ideally in prospective randomized trials, she noted.

The substudy is important because it provides further insights into the link between colchicine and microtubule polymerization, affecting the activation of the inflammasome, session moderator Imazio said.

“Second, it is important because pharmacogenomics can help us to better understand the optimal responder to colchicine and colchicine resistance,” he said. “So it can be useful for personalized medicine, leading to the proper use of the drug for the proper patient.”

COLCOT was supported by the government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Bouabdallaoui has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dubé reported grants from the government of Quebec; personal fees from DalCor and GlaxoSmithKline; research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi; and minor equity interest in DalCor. Dubé is also coauthor of patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, and pharmacogenomics markers of response to colchicine.  

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The earlier the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine is initiated after a myocardial infarction (MI) the greater the benefit, a new COLCOT analysis suggests.

The parent trial was conducted in patients with a recent MI because of the intense inflammation present at that time, and added colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care within 30 days following MI.

As previously reported, colchicine significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring revascularization – by 23% compared with placebo.

This new analysis shows the risk was reduced by 48% in patients receiving colchicine within 3 days of an MI (4.3% vs. 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.84, P = .007).

Risk of a secondary efficacy end point – CV death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, or stroke – was reduced by 45% over an average follow up of 22.7 months (3.3% vs 6.1%; adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95, P = .031).

“We believe that our results support an early, in-hospital initiation of adjunctive colchicine for post-MI prevention,” Nadia Bouabdallaoui, MD, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, said during an online session devoted to colchicine at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

Session moderator Massimo Imazio, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, said the improved outcomes suggest that earlier treatment is better – a finding that parallels his own experience using colchicine in patients with pericarditis.

“This substudy is very important because this is probably also the year in cardiovascular applications [that] early use of the drug could improve outcomes,” he said.

Positive data have been accumulating for colchicine from COLCOT, LoDoCo, and, most recently, the LoDoCo2 trial, even as another anti-inflammatory drug, methotrexate, flamed out as secondary prevention in the CIRT trial.

The new COLCOT substudy included 4,661 of the 4,745 original patients and examined treatment initiation using three strata: within 0-3 days (n = 1,193), 4-7 days (n = 720), and 8-30 days (n = 2,748). Patients who received treatment within 3 days were slightly younger, more likely to be smokers, and to have a shorter time from MI to randomization (2.1 days vs 5.1 days vs. 20.8 days, respectively).

In the subset receiving treatment within 3 days, those assigned to colchicine had the same number of cardiac deaths as those given placebo (2 vs. 2) but fewer resuscitated cardiac arrests (1 vs. 3), MIs (17 vs. 29), strokes (1 vs. 5), and urgent hospitalizations for angina requiring revascularization (6 vs. 17).

“A larger trial might have allowed for a better assessment of individual endpoints and subgroups,” observed Bouabdallaoui.

Although there is growing support for colchicine, experts caution that the drug many not be for everyone. In COLCOT, 1 in 10 patients were unable to tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal (GI) issues.
 

Pharmacogenomics substudy

A second COLCOT substudy aimed to identify genetic markers predictive of colchicine response and to gain insights into the mechanisms behind this response. It included 767 patients treated with colchicine and another 755 treated with placebo – or about one-third the patients in the original trial.

A genome-wide association study did not find a significant association for the primary CV endpoint, although a prespecified subgroup analysis in men identified an interesting region on chromosome 9 (variant: rs10811106), which just missed reaching genomewide significance, said Marie-Pierre Dubé, PhD, director of the Université de Montréal Beaulieu-Saucier Pharmacogenomics Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute.

In addition, the genomewide analysis found two significant regions for GI events: one on chromosome 6 (variant: rs6916345) and one on chromosome 10 (variant: rs74795203).

For each of the identified regions, the researchers then tested the effect of the allele in the placebo group and the interaction between the genetic variant and treatment with colchicine. For the chromosome 9 region in males, there was no effect in the placebo group and a significant interaction in the colchicine group.

For the significant GI event findings, there was a small effect for the chromosome 6 region in the placebo group and a very significant interaction with colchicine, Dubé said. Similarly, there was no effect for the chromosome 10 region in the placebo group and a significant interaction with colchicine.

Additional analyses in stratified patient populations showed that males with the protective allele (CC) for the chromosome 9 region represented 83% of the population. The primary CV endpoint occurred in 3.2% of these men treated with colchicine and 6.3% treated with placebo (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 - 0.86).

For the gastrointestinal events, 25% of patients carried the risk allele (AA) for the chromosome 6 region and 36.9% of these had GI events when treated with colchicine versus 18.6% when treated with placebo (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.57-3.72).

Similarly, 13% of individuals carried one or two copies of the risk allele (AG+GG) for the chromosome 10 region and the risk of GI events in these was nearly four times higher with colchicine (47.1% vs. 18.9%; HR, 3.98; 95% CI 2.24-7.07).

Functional genomic analyses of the identified regions were also performed and showed that the chromosome 9 locus overlaps with the SAXO1 gene, a stabilizer of axonemal microtubules 1.

“The leading variant at this locus (rs10811106 C allele) correlated with the expression of the HAUS6 gene, which is involved in microtubule generation from existing microtubules, and may interact with the effect of colchicine, which is known to inhibit microtubule formation,” observed Dubé. 

Also, the chromosome 6 locus associated with gastrointestinal events was colocalizing with the Crohn’s disease locus, adding further support for this region.

“The results support potential personalized approaches to inflammation reduction for cardiovascular prevention,” Dubé said.

This is a post hoc subgroup analysis, however, and replication is necessary, ideally in prospective randomized trials, she noted.

The substudy is important because it provides further insights into the link between colchicine and microtubule polymerization, affecting the activation of the inflammasome, session moderator Imazio said.

“Second, it is important because pharmacogenomics can help us to better understand the optimal responder to colchicine and colchicine resistance,” he said. “So it can be useful for personalized medicine, leading to the proper use of the drug for the proper patient.”

COLCOT was supported by the government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Bouabdallaoui has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dubé reported grants from the government of Quebec; personal fees from DalCor and GlaxoSmithKline; research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi; and minor equity interest in DalCor. Dubé is also coauthor of patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, and pharmacogenomics markers of response to colchicine.  

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The earlier the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine is initiated after a myocardial infarction (MI) the greater the benefit, a new COLCOT analysis suggests.

The parent trial was conducted in patients with a recent MI because of the intense inflammation present at that time, and added colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care within 30 days following MI.

As previously reported, colchicine significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring revascularization – by 23% compared with placebo.

This new analysis shows the risk was reduced by 48% in patients receiving colchicine within 3 days of an MI (4.3% vs. 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.84, P = .007).

Risk of a secondary efficacy end point – CV death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, or stroke – was reduced by 45% over an average follow up of 22.7 months (3.3% vs 6.1%; adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95, P = .031).

“We believe that our results support an early, in-hospital initiation of adjunctive colchicine for post-MI prevention,” Nadia Bouabdallaoui, MD, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, said during an online session devoted to colchicine at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

Session moderator Massimo Imazio, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, said the improved outcomes suggest that earlier treatment is better – a finding that parallels his own experience using colchicine in patients with pericarditis.

“This substudy is very important because this is probably also the year in cardiovascular applications [that] early use of the drug could improve outcomes,” he said.

Positive data have been accumulating for colchicine from COLCOT, LoDoCo, and, most recently, the LoDoCo2 trial, even as another anti-inflammatory drug, methotrexate, flamed out as secondary prevention in the CIRT trial.

The new COLCOT substudy included 4,661 of the 4,745 original patients and examined treatment initiation using three strata: within 0-3 days (n = 1,193), 4-7 days (n = 720), and 8-30 days (n = 2,748). Patients who received treatment within 3 days were slightly younger, more likely to be smokers, and to have a shorter time from MI to randomization (2.1 days vs 5.1 days vs. 20.8 days, respectively).

In the subset receiving treatment within 3 days, those assigned to colchicine had the same number of cardiac deaths as those given placebo (2 vs. 2) but fewer resuscitated cardiac arrests (1 vs. 3), MIs (17 vs. 29), strokes (1 vs. 5), and urgent hospitalizations for angina requiring revascularization (6 vs. 17).

“A larger trial might have allowed for a better assessment of individual endpoints and subgroups,” observed Bouabdallaoui.

Although there is growing support for colchicine, experts caution that the drug many not be for everyone. In COLCOT, 1 in 10 patients were unable to tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal (GI) issues.
 

Pharmacogenomics substudy

A second COLCOT substudy aimed to identify genetic markers predictive of colchicine response and to gain insights into the mechanisms behind this response. It included 767 patients treated with colchicine and another 755 treated with placebo – or about one-third the patients in the original trial.

A genome-wide association study did not find a significant association for the primary CV endpoint, although a prespecified subgroup analysis in men identified an interesting region on chromosome 9 (variant: rs10811106), which just missed reaching genomewide significance, said Marie-Pierre Dubé, PhD, director of the Université de Montréal Beaulieu-Saucier Pharmacogenomics Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute.

In addition, the genomewide analysis found two significant regions for GI events: one on chromosome 6 (variant: rs6916345) and one on chromosome 10 (variant: rs74795203).

For each of the identified regions, the researchers then tested the effect of the allele in the placebo group and the interaction between the genetic variant and treatment with colchicine. For the chromosome 9 region in males, there was no effect in the placebo group and a significant interaction in the colchicine group.

For the significant GI event findings, there was a small effect for the chromosome 6 region in the placebo group and a very significant interaction with colchicine, Dubé said. Similarly, there was no effect for the chromosome 10 region in the placebo group and a significant interaction with colchicine.

Additional analyses in stratified patient populations showed that males with the protective allele (CC) for the chromosome 9 region represented 83% of the population. The primary CV endpoint occurred in 3.2% of these men treated with colchicine and 6.3% treated with placebo (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 - 0.86).

For the gastrointestinal events, 25% of patients carried the risk allele (AA) for the chromosome 6 region and 36.9% of these had GI events when treated with colchicine versus 18.6% when treated with placebo (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.57-3.72).

Similarly, 13% of individuals carried one or two copies of the risk allele (AG+GG) for the chromosome 10 region and the risk of GI events in these was nearly four times higher with colchicine (47.1% vs. 18.9%; HR, 3.98; 95% CI 2.24-7.07).

Functional genomic analyses of the identified regions were also performed and showed that the chromosome 9 locus overlaps with the SAXO1 gene, a stabilizer of axonemal microtubules 1.

“The leading variant at this locus (rs10811106 C allele) correlated with the expression of the HAUS6 gene, which is involved in microtubule generation from existing microtubules, and may interact with the effect of colchicine, which is known to inhibit microtubule formation,” observed Dubé. 

Also, the chromosome 6 locus associated with gastrointestinal events was colocalizing with the Crohn’s disease locus, adding further support for this region.

“The results support potential personalized approaches to inflammation reduction for cardiovascular prevention,” Dubé said.

This is a post hoc subgroup analysis, however, and replication is necessary, ideally in prospective randomized trials, she noted.

The substudy is important because it provides further insights into the link between colchicine and microtubule polymerization, affecting the activation of the inflammasome, session moderator Imazio said.

“Second, it is important because pharmacogenomics can help us to better understand the optimal responder to colchicine and colchicine resistance,” he said. “So it can be useful for personalized medicine, leading to the proper use of the drug for the proper patient.”

COLCOT was supported by the government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Bouabdallaoui has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dubé reported grants from the government of Quebec; personal fees from DalCor and GlaxoSmithKline; research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi; and minor equity interest in DalCor. Dubé is also coauthor of patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, and pharmacogenomics markers of response to colchicine.  

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early administration of evolocumab significantly reduced levels of LDL cholesterol in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, according to data from an open-label randomized trial of 102 adults in Japan.

Data from previous studies have shown that proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors can reduce LDL cholesterol in acute coronary syndrome patients, wrote Tomoaki Okada, MD, of Kagawa (Japan) Prefectural Central Hospital and colleagues.

In particular, “The EVOPACS trial [J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74:2452-62] reported that evolocumab therapy initiated at an early phase of ACS showed [LDL cholesterol] level reduction by 4-8 weeks,” they said.

“However, the 4-week efficacy of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy combined with a statin remains unknown,” they said.

In a study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, the researchers randomized 52 patients to receive 140 mg of evolocumab subcutaneously within 24 hours of indexed percutaneous coronary intervention and again after 2 weeks. A group of 50 controls received evolocumab after PCI only, but no additional dose after 2 weeks.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 88% were men, and 26% had a history of statin treatment.

A total of 49 patients in each group were included in the final analysis, with a primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline to 4 weeks.

Baseline LCL cholesterol levels were 120.8 mg/dL and 124.7 mg/dL in the evolocumab and control groups, respectively. Changes from baseline were significantly greater in the evolocumab group, compared with controls, at –76% and –33%, respectively.

All patients in the evolocumab group and 27% of patients in the control groups achieved LDL cholesterol levels of less than 70 mg/dL at 4 weeks. In addition, 92% and 96% of evolocumab patients achieved LDL cholesterol levels less than 55 mg/dL at 2 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively.

Overall changes in non-HDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and small dense LDL in the evolocumab and control groups were –66.2% and –26.0%; 2.8% and –0.7%; and –67% and –13.8%, respectively. Of these, changes in non-HDL cholesterol and small dense LDL were significantly different between the groups.

In addition, patients in the evolocumab group showed a 3% decrease in lipoprotein, compared with an 82% increase in the control group. This finding suggests the additional benefit of including evolocumab for managing residual risk in patients with high lipoprotein(a) levels” after acute MI, the researchers noted.

Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

‘Early and strong’ LDL cholesterol lowering best for preventing repeat events

“By using the PCSK9 inhibitors, we have the opportunity to lower LDL cholesterol [LDL-C]” both quickly and dramatically, said Heinz Drexel, MD, in an interview.

“This Japanese study shows that very low LDL-C levels can be obtained as fast as within 4 weeks,” he said. “This fits into the concept that risk for future infarctions and strokes is best reduced by early and strong LDL-C lowering,” he explained.

Dr. Drexel said that he was not surprised by the magnitude of the decrease in LDL cholesterol in study findings in light of the EVOPACS study and other research, as well as his own clinical experience.

“The primary message for doctors is that it is now possible to achieve these low levels of LDL-C in a short time,” he said.

“Additional research must prove that this low LDL-C translates to reduction of MIs and strokes, and there is increasing evidence that this will happen,” Dr. Drexel noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Drexel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Okada T et al. ESC 2020. JACC Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.08.026.

Early administration of evolocumab significantly reduced levels of LDL cholesterol in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, according to data from an open-label randomized trial of 102 adults in Japan.

Data from previous studies have shown that proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors can reduce LDL cholesterol in acute coronary syndrome patients, wrote Tomoaki Okada, MD, of Kagawa (Japan) Prefectural Central Hospital and colleagues.

In particular, “The EVOPACS trial [J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74:2452-62] reported that evolocumab therapy initiated at an early phase of ACS showed [LDL cholesterol] level reduction by 4-8 weeks,” they said.

“However, the 4-week efficacy of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy combined with a statin remains unknown,” they said.

In a study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, the researchers randomized 52 patients to receive 140 mg of evolocumab subcutaneously within 24 hours of indexed percutaneous coronary intervention and again after 2 weeks. A group of 50 controls received evolocumab after PCI only, but no additional dose after 2 weeks.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 88% were men, and 26% had a history of statin treatment.

A total of 49 patients in each group were included in the final analysis, with a primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline to 4 weeks.

Baseline LCL cholesterol levels were 120.8 mg/dL and 124.7 mg/dL in the evolocumab and control groups, respectively. Changes from baseline were significantly greater in the evolocumab group, compared with controls, at –76% and –33%, respectively.

All patients in the evolocumab group and 27% of patients in the control groups achieved LDL cholesterol levels of less than 70 mg/dL at 4 weeks. In addition, 92% and 96% of evolocumab patients achieved LDL cholesterol levels less than 55 mg/dL at 2 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively.

Overall changes in non-HDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and small dense LDL in the evolocumab and control groups were –66.2% and –26.0%; 2.8% and –0.7%; and –67% and –13.8%, respectively. Of these, changes in non-HDL cholesterol and small dense LDL were significantly different between the groups.

In addition, patients in the evolocumab group showed a 3% decrease in lipoprotein, compared with an 82% increase in the control group. This finding suggests the additional benefit of including evolocumab for managing residual risk in patients with high lipoprotein(a) levels” after acute MI, the researchers noted.

Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

‘Early and strong’ LDL cholesterol lowering best for preventing repeat events

“By using the PCSK9 inhibitors, we have the opportunity to lower LDL cholesterol [LDL-C]” both quickly and dramatically, said Heinz Drexel, MD, in an interview.

“This Japanese study shows that very low LDL-C levels can be obtained as fast as within 4 weeks,” he said. “This fits into the concept that risk for future infarctions and strokes is best reduced by early and strong LDL-C lowering,” he explained.

Dr. Drexel said that he was not surprised by the magnitude of the decrease in LDL cholesterol in study findings in light of the EVOPACS study and other research, as well as his own clinical experience.

“The primary message for doctors is that it is now possible to achieve these low levels of LDL-C in a short time,” he said.

“Additional research must prove that this low LDL-C translates to reduction of MIs and strokes, and there is increasing evidence that this will happen,” Dr. Drexel noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Drexel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Okada T et al. ESC 2020. JACC Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.08.026.

Early administration of evolocumab significantly reduced levels of LDL cholesterol in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, according to data from an open-label randomized trial of 102 adults in Japan.

Data from previous studies have shown that proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors can reduce LDL cholesterol in acute coronary syndrome patients, wrote Tomoaki Okada, MD, of Kagawa (Japan) Prefectural Central Hospital and colleagues.

In particular, “The EVOPACS trial [J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74:2452-62] reported that evolocumab therapy initiated at an early phase of ACS showed [LDL cholesterol] level reduction by 4-8 weeks,” they said.

“However, the 4-week efficacy of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy combined with a statin remains unknown,” they said.

In a study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, the researchers randomized 52 patients to receive 140 mg of evolocumab subcutaneously within 24 hours of indexed percutaneous coronary intervention and again after 2 weeks. A group of 50 controls received evolocumab after PCI only, but no additional dose after 2 weeks.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 88% were men, and 26% had a history of statin treatment.

A total of 49 patients in each group were included in the final analysis, with a primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline to 4 weeks.

Baseline LCL cholesterol levels were 120.8 mg/dL and 124.7 mg/dL in the evolocumab and control groups, respectively. Changes from baseline were significantly greater in the evolocumab group, compared with controls, at –76% and –33%, respectively.

All patients in the evolocumab group and 27% of patients in the control groups achieved LDL cholesterol levels of less than 70 mg/dL at 4 weeks. In addition, 92% and 96% of evolocumab patients achieved LDL cholesterol levels less than 55 mg/dL at 2 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively.

Overall changes in non-HDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and small dense LDL in the evolocumab and control groups were –66.2% and –26.0%; 2.8% and –0.7%; and –67% and –13.8%, respectively. Of these, changes in non-HDL cholesterol and small dense LDL were significantly different between the groups.

In addition, patients in the evolocumab group showed a 3% decrease in lipoprotein, compared with an 82% increase in the control group. This finding suggests the additional benefit of including evolocumab for managing residual risk in patients with high lipoprotein(a) levels” after acute MI, the researchers noted.

Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

‘Early and strong’ LDL cholesterol lowering best for preventing repeat events

“By using the PCSK9 inhibitors, we have the opportunity to lower LDL cholesterol [LDL-C]” both quickly and dramatically, said Heinz Drexel, MD, in an interview.

“This Japanese study shows that very low LDL-C levels can be obtained as fast as within 4 weeks,” he said. “This fits into the concept that risk for future infarctions and strokes is best reduced by early and strong LDL-C lowering,” he explained.

Dr. Drexel said that he was not surprised by the magnitude of the decrease in LDL cholesterol in study findings in light of the EVOPACS study and other research, as well as his own clinical experience.

“The primary message for doctors is that it is now possible to achieve these low levels of LDL-C in a short time,” he said.

“Additional research must prove that this low LDL-C translates to reduction of MIs and strokes, and there is increasing evidence that this will happen,” Dr. Drexel noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Drexel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Okada T et al. ESC 2020. JACC Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.08.026.

The anti-inflammatory drug colchicine picked up new support as secondary prevention in chronic coronary disease, cutting the risk of cardiovascular events by one-third when added to standard prevention therapies in the double-blind LoDoCo2 study.

Across a median follow up of 29 months in more than 5,000 patients, almost 1 in 10 patients assigned to placebo experienced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. That risk was 31% lower and resulted in 77 fewer events in those assigned to colchicine (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.83).

The beneficial effect of low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily was seen early on and accrued over time, extending to five of the eight secondary end points, including a near 30% reduction in the composite of major adverse cardiac events, as well as reductions in the individual endpoints of MI and ischemia-driven revascularization.

“It did that with broadly consistent effects across a range of clinical subgroups, which together speak to the strength of the effect of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes in the sort of patients we routinely see in our clinics,” primary investigator Mark Nidorf, MD, MBBS, GenesisCare Western Australia, Perth, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine (2020 Aug 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021372).

“The totality of evidence from the big three double-blind placebo controlled trials – CANTOS, COLCOT, and LoDoCo2 – are highly consistent and should be practice changing,” Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Massimo Imazio, MD, the formal discussant for the study and professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, also called for repurposing the inexpensive gout medication for cardiovascular patients.

“I would like to congratulate the authors for a well-designed, large, randomized trial that in my view provides convincing evidence that colchicine is safe and efficacious for secondary prevention in chronic coronary syndrome, of course if tolerated,” he said.

Dr. Imazio noted that colchicine demonstrated similar benefits in the smaller, open-label LoDoCo trial, but that 1 in 10 patients couldn’t tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal issues. The LoCoDo2 investigators very wisely opted for a 30-day run-in period for tolerance without a loading dose, and 90% of patients in each arm continued study medication while 3.4% stopped because of perceived effects.

Clinicians should bear in mind the potential for side effects and interactions with other medications, particularly statins, observed Dr. Imazio. “So monitoring of repeat blood tests is indicated, especially blood cell count, transaminase, and [creatine kinase] CK.”

Colchicine can be problematic in patients with chronic kidney disease because it is renally excreted, particularly if patients also take some common antibiotics such as clarithromycin, said Dr. Ridker, who led the landmark CANTOS trial. “So while these data are exciting and confirm the importance of inflammation inhibition in stable coronary disease, colchicine is not for all patients.”

During the discussion of the results, Dr. Nidorf said: “We were very concerned at the outset that there would be an interaction because there is certainly literature there, particularly in renal patients. But as the data showed, the incidence of myotoxicity was decidedly rare.”

Further, myotoxic episodes were independently assessed by a blinded reviewer, and although there was one case of mild rhabdomyolysis in the treatment group, it was considered not primarily caused by colchicine, he said. “So we’re fairly comfortable that you can use colchicine at a low dose quite comfortably with full-dose statins.”

Notably, 94% of patients in both groups were taking statins, and two-thirds were on moderate- or high-dose statins. About one-quarter were on dual-antiplatelet therapy, and 12% were on an anticoagulant.

In all, 5,522 patients aged 35-82 years (mean, 66 years) were randomly assigned to colchicine 0.5 mg once daily or placebo on top of proven secondary prevention therapies, and all but one was available for analysis.

Most were male (85%), one-half had hypertension, 18% had diabetes, and 84% had a history of acute coronary syndrome, with an equal number having undergone revascularization. Patients with advanced renal disease, severe heart failure, or severe valvular heart disease were excluded.

Colchicine, when compared with placebo, was associated with significantly lower incidence rates of the top five ranked secondary endpoints:

• Cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke (4.2% vs. 5.7%; HR, 0.72).
• MI or ischemia-driven revascularization (5.6% vs. 8.1%; HR, 0.67).
• Cardiovascular death or MI (3.6% vs. 5.0%; HR, 0.71).
• Ischemia-driven revascularization (4.9% vs. 6.4%; HR, 0.75).
• MI (3.0% vs. 4.2%; HR, 0.70).

The incidence rates were similar among the remaining three secondary outcomes: ischemic stroke (0.6% vs. 0.9%), all-cause death (2.6% vs. 2.2%), and CV death (0.7% vs. 0.9%), Dr. Nidorf reported.

The effect of colchicine was consistent in 13 subgroups, including those with and without hypertension, diabetes, or prior acute coronary syndrome. Patients in Australia appeared to do better with colchicine than did those in the Netherlands, which was a bit unexpected but likely caused by the play of chance, Dr. Nidorf said.

“Importantly, the effect when we looked at the predictors of outcome of our patients in this trial, they related to factors such as age and diabetes, which were included in both populations. So we believe the effect of therapy to be universal,” he added.

Session moderator Stephan Achenbach, MD, chair of cardiology at the University of Erlangen (Germany), however, noted that event rates were about 3% per year and many patients had undergone coronary revascularizations for acute coronary syndromes, suggesting this may be a preselected, somewhat higher-risk cohort. “Do you think we can transfer these findings to the just-average patient who comes in with chest pain and gets an elective [percutaneous coronary intervention]?” he asked.

Dr. Nidorf replied that, unlike the patients in COLCOT, who were randomized to colchicine within 30 days of an MI, acute events occurred more than 24 months before randomization in most (68.2%) patients. As such, patients were quite stable, and major adverse cardiac event and cardiovascular death rates were also exceedingly low.

“We did not see them as a particularly high-risk group, which I think is one of the beauties of this study,” Dr. Nidorf said. “It looks at people that are very similar to those who come and meet us in our clinics for regular review and follow-up.”

“And in that regard, I think the next time we’re faced with patients in our rooms, we have to ask the question: Are we doing enough for this patient beyond aspirin and statins? Should we be considering treating the inflammatory axis? And now we have an opportunity to do that,” he said.

Serious adverse effects were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, including hospitalizations for infection (5.0% vs. 5.2%), pneumonia (1.7% vs. 2.0%), or gastrointestinal reasons (1.9% vs. 1.8%). Myotoxicity occurred in four and three patients, respectively.

Although the signal for increased risk of infection observed in CANTOS and COLCOT was not borne out, Dr. Nidorf observed that chest infections can occur frequently in these patients and echoed cautions about a potential unfavorable interaction between clarithromycin and colchicine.

“If we are to use this drug widely, clinicians will need to learn how to use this drug and what drugs to avoid, and that’s an important teaching point,” he said.

Limitations of the study are the small number of women and lack of routine measurement of C-reactive protein or other inflammatory markers at baseline.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia, a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee, the Withering Foundation the Netherlands, the Netherlands Heart Foundation, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the article.
 

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

The anti-inflammatory drug colchicine picked up new support as secondary prevention in chronic coronary disease, cutting the risk of cardiovascular events by one-third when added to standard prevention therapies in the double-blind LoDoCo2 study.

Across a median follow up of 29 months in more than 5,000 patients, almost 1 in 10 patients assigned to placebo experienced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. That risk was 31% lower and resulted in 77 fewer events in those assigned to colchicine (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.83).

The beneficial effect of low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily was seen early on and accrued over time, extending to five of the eight secondary end points, including a near 30% reduction in the composite of major adverse cardiac events, as well as reductions in the individual endpoints of MI and ischemia-driven revascularization.

“It did that with broadly consistent effects across a range of clinical subgroups, which together speak to the strength of the effect of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes in the sort of patients we routinely see in our clinics,” primary investigator Mark Nidorf, MD, MBBS, GenesisCare Western Australia, Perth, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine (2020 Aug 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021372).

“The totality of evidence from the big three double-blind placebo controlled trials – CANTOS, COLCOT, and LoDoCo2 – are highly consistent and should be practice changing,” Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Massimo Imazio, MD, the formal discussant for the study and professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, also called for repurposing the inexpensive gout medication for cardiovascular patients.

“I would like to congratulate the authors for a well-designed, large, randomized trial that in my view provides convincing evidence that colchicine is safe and efficacious for secondary prevention in chronic coronary syndrome, of course if tolerated,” he said.

Dr. Imazio noted that colchicine demonstrated similar benefits in the smaller, open-label LoDoCo trial, but that 1 in 10 patients couldn’t tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal issues. The LoCoDo2 investigators very wisely opted for a 30-day run-in period for tolerance without a loading dose, and 90% of patients in each arm continued study medication while 3.4% stopped because of perceived effects.

Clinicians should bear in mind the potential for side effects and interactions with other medications, particularly statins, observed Dr. Imazio. “So monitoring of repeat blood tests is indicated, especially blood cell count, transaminase, and [creatine kinase] CK.”

Colchicine can be problematic in patients with chronic kidney disease because it is renally excreted, particularly if patients also take some common antibiotics such as clarithromycin, said Dr. Ridker, who led the landmark CANTOS trial. “So while these data are exciting and confirm the importance of inflammation inhibition in stable coronary disease, colchicine is not for all patients.”

During the discussion of the results, Dr. Nidorf said: “We were very concerned at the outset that there would be an interaction because there is certainly literature there, particularly in renal patients. But as the data showed, the incidence of myotoxicity was decidedly rare.”

Further, myotoxic episodes were independently assessed by a blinded reviewer, and although there was one case of mild rhabdomyolysis in the treatment group, it was considered not primarily caused by colchicine, he said. “So we’re fairly comfortable that you can use colchicine at a low dose quite comfortably with full-dose statins.”

Notably, 94% of patients in both groups were taking statins, and two-thirds were on moderate- or high-dose statins. About one-quarter were on dual-antiplatelet therapy, and 12% were on an anticoagulant.

In all, 5,522 patients aged 35-82 years (mean, 66 years) were randomly assigned to colchicine 0.5 mg once daily or placebo on top of proven secondary prevention therapies, and all but one was available for analysis.

Most were male (85%), one-half had hypertension, 18% had diabetes, and 84% had a history of acute coronary syndrome, with an equal number having undergone revascularization. Patients with advanced renal disease, severe heart failure, or severe valvular heart disease were excluded.

Colchicine, when compared with placebo, was associated with significantly lower incidence rates of the top five ranked secondary endpoints:

• Cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke (4.2% vs. 5.7%; HR, 0.72).
• MI or ischemia-driven revascularization (5.6% vs. 8.1%; HR, 0.67).
• Cardiovascular death or MI (3.6% vs. 5.0%; HR, 0.71).
• Ischemia-driven revascularization (4.9% vs. 6.4%; HR, 0.75).
• MI (3.0% vs. 4.2%; HR, 0.70).

The incidence rates were similar among the remaining three secondary outcomes: ischemic stroke (0.6% vs. 0.9%), all-cause death (2.6% vs. 2.2%), and CV death (0.7% vs. 0.9%), Dr. Nidorf reported.

The effect of colchicine was consistent in 13 subgroups, including those with and without hypertension, diabetes, or prior acute coronary syndrome. Patients in Australia appeared to do better with colchicine than did those in the Netherlands, which was a bit unexpected but likely caused by the play of chance, Dr. Nidorf said.

“Importantly, the effect when we looked at the predictors of outcome of our patients in this trial, they related to factors such as age and diabetes, which were included in both populations. So we believe the effect of therapy to be universal,” he added.

Session moderator Stephan Achenbach, MD, chair of cardiology at the University of Erlangen (Germany), however, noted that event rates were about 3% per year and many patients had undergone coronary revascularizations for acute coronary syndromes, suggesting this may be a preselected, somewhat higher-risk cohort. “Do you think we can transfer these findings to the just-average patient who comes in with chest pain and gets an elective [percutaneous coronary intervention]?” he asked.

Dr. Nidorf replied that, unlike the patients in COLCOT, who were randomized to colchicine within 30 days of an MI, acute events occurred more than 24 months before randomization in most (68.2%) patients. As such, patients were quite stable, and major adverse cardiac event and cardiovascular death rates were also exceedingly low.

“We did not see them as a particularly high-risk group, which I think is one of the beauties of this study,” Dr. Nidorf said. “It looks at people that are very similar to those who come and meet us in our clinics for regular review and follow-up.”

“And in that regard, I think the next time we’re faced with patients in our rooms, we have to ask the question: Are we doing enough for this patient beyond aspirin and statins? Should we be considering treating the inflammatory axis? And now we have an opportunity to do that,” he said.

Serious adverse effects were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, including hospitalizations for infection (5.0% vs. 5.2%), pneumonia (1.7% vs. 2.0%), or gastrointestinal reasons (1.9% vs. 1.8%). Myotoxicity occurred in four and three patients, respectively.

Although the signal for increased risk of infection observed in CANTOS and COLCOT was not borne out, Dr. Nidorf observed that chest infections can occur frequently in these patients and echoed cautions about a potential unfavorable interaction between clarithromycin and colchicine.

“If we are to use this drug widely, clinicians will need to learn how to use this drug and what drugs to avoid, and that’s an important teaching point,” he said.

Limitations of the study are the small number of women and lack of routine measurement of C-reactive protein or other inflammatory markers at baseline.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia, a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee, the Withering Foundation the Netherlands, the Netherlands Heart Foundation, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the article.
 

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

The anti-inflammatory drug colchicine picked up new support as secondary prevention in chronic coronary disease, cutting the risk of cardiovascular events by one-third when added to standard prevention therapies in the double-blind LoDoCo2 study.

Across a median follow up of 29 months in more than 5,000 patients, almost 1 in 10 patients assigned to placebo experienced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. That risk was 31% lower and resulted in 77 fewer events in those assigned to colchicine (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.83).

The beneficial effect of low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily was seen early on and accrued over time, extending to five of the eight secondary end points, including a near 30% reduction in the composite of major adverse cardiac events, as well as reductions in the individual endpoints of MI and ischemia-driven revascularization.

“It did that with broadly consistent effects across a range of clinical subgroups, which together speak to the strength of the effect of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes in the sort of patients we routinely see in our clinics,” primary investigator Mark Nidorf, MD, MBBS, GenesisCare Western Australia, Perth, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine (2020 Aug 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021372).

“The totality of evidence from the big three double-blind placebo controlled trials – CANTOS, COLCOT, and LoDoCo2 – are highly consistent and should be practice changing,” Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Massimo Imazio, MD, the formal discussant for the study and professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, also called for repurposing the inexpensive gout medication for cardiovascular patients.

“I would like to congratulate the authors for a well-designed, large, randomized trial that in my view provides convincing evidence that colchicine is safe and efficacious for secondary prevention in chronic coronary syndrome, of course if tolerated,” he said.

Dr. Imazio noted that colchicine demonstrated similar benefits in the smaller, open-label LoDoCo trial, but that 1 in 10 patients couldn’t tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal issues. The LoCoDo2 investigators very wisely opted for a 30-day run-in period for tolerance without a loading dose, and 90% of patients in each arm continued study medication while 3.4% stopped because of perceived effects.

Clinicians should bear in mind the potential for side effects and interactions with other medications, particularly statins, observed Dr. Imazio. “So monitoring of repeat blood tests is indicated, especially blood cell count, transaminase, and [creatine kinase] CK.”

Colchicine can be problematic in patients with chronic kidney disease because it is renally excreted, particularly if patients also take some common antibiotics such as clarithromycin, said Dr. Ridker, who led the landmark CANTOS trial. “So while these data are exciting and confirm the importance of inflammation inhibition in stable coronary disease, colchicine is not for all patients.”

During the discussion of the results, Dr. Nidorf said: “We were very concerned at the outset that there would be an interaction because there is certainly literature there, particularly in renal patients. But as the data showed, the incidence of myotoxicity was decidedly rare.”

Further, myotoxic episodes were independently assessed by a blinded reviewer, and although there was one case of mild rhabdomyolysis in the treatment group, it was considered not primarily caused by colchicine, he said. “So we’re fairly comfortable that you can use colchicine at a low dose quite comfortably with full-dose statins.”

Notably, 94% of patients in both groups were taking statins, and two-thirds were on moderate- or high-dose statins. About one-quarter were on dual-antiplatelet therapy, and 12% were on an anticoagulant.

In all, 5,522 patients aged 35-82 years (mean, 66 years) were randomly assigned to colchicine 0.5 mg once daily or placebo on top of proven secondary prevention therapies, and all but one was available for analysis.

Most were male (85%), one-half had hypertension, 18% had diabetes, and 84% had a history of acute coronary syndrome, with an equal number having undergone revascularization. Patients with advanced renal disease, severe heart failure, or severe valvular heart disease were excluded.

Colchicine, when compared with placebo, was associated with significantly lower incidence rates of the top five ranked secondary endpoints:

• Cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke (4.2% vs. 5.7%; HR, 0.72).
• MI or ischemia-driven revascularization (5.6% vs. 8.1%; HR, 0.67).
• Cardiovascular death or MI (3.6% vs. 5.0%; HR, 0.71).
• Ischemia-driven revascularization (4.9% vs. 6.4%; HR, 0.75).
• MI (3.0% vs. 4.2%; HR, 0.70).

The incidence rates were similar among the remaining three secondary outcomes: ischemic stroke (0.6% vs. 0.9%), all-cause death (2.6% vs. 2.2%), and CV death (0.7% vs. 0.9%), Dr. Nidorf reported.

The effect of colchicine was consistent in 13 subgroups, including those with and without hypertension, diabetes, or prior acute coronary syndrome. Patients in Australia appeared to do better with colchicine than did those in the Netherlands, which was a bit unexpected but likely caused by the play of chance, Dr. Nidorf said.

“Importantly, the effect when we looked at the predictors of outcome of our patients in this trial, they related to factors such as age and diabetes, which were included in both populations. So we believe the effect of therapy to be universal,” he added.

Session moderator Stephan Achenbach, MD, chair of cardiology at the University of Erlangen (Germany), however, noted that event rates were about 3% per year and many patients had undergone coronary revascularizations for acute coronary syndromes, suggesting this may be a preselected, somewhat higher-risk cohort. “Do you think we can transfer these findings to the just-average patient who comes in with chest pain and gets an elective [percutaneous coronary intervention]?” he asked.

Dr. Nidorf replied that, unlike the patients in COLCOT, who were randomized to colchicine within 30 days of an MI, acute events occurred more than 24 months before randomization in most (68.2%) patients. As such, patients were quite stable, and major adverse cardiac event and cardiovascular death rates were also exceedingly low.

“We did not see them as a particularly high-risk group, which I think is one of the beauties of this study,” Dr. Nidorf said. “It looks at people that are very similar to those who come and meet us in our clinics for regular review and follow-up.”

“And in that regard, I think the next time we’re faced with patients in our rooms, we have to ask the question: Are we doing enough for this patient beyond aspirin and statins? Should we be considering treating the inflammatory axis? And now we have an opportunity to do that,” he said.

Serious adverse effects were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, including hospitalizations for infection (5.0% vs. 5.2%), pneumonia (1.7% vs. 2.0%), or gastrointestinal reasons (1.9% vs. 1.8%). Myotoxicity occurred in four and three patients, respectively.

Although the signal for increased risk of infection observed in CANTOS and COLCOT was not borne out, Dr. Nidorf observed that chest infections can occur frequently in these patients and echoed cautions about a potential unfavorable interaction between clarithromycin and colchicine.

“If we are to use this drug widely, clinicians will need to learn how to use this drug and what drugs to avoid, and that’s an important teaching point,” he said.

Limitations of the study are the small number of women and lack of routine measurement of C-reactive protein or other inflammatory markers at baseline.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia, a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee, the Withering Foundation the Netherlands, the Netherlands Heart Foundation, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the article.
 

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

A restrictive blood transfusion strategy in myocardial infarction patients with anemia proved safe, significantly less costly, and at least as effective as the standard liberal transfusion strategy in the landmark REALITY trial.

Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.

Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.

“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.

The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.

In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.

The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.

Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.

Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.

“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.

“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.

He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.

“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.

He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”

Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.

The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”

During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.

“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.

Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.

The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A restrictive blood transfusion strategy in myocardial infarction patients with anemia proved safe, significantly less costly, and at least as effective as the standard liberal transfusion strategy in the landmark REALITY trial.

Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.

Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.

“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.

The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.

In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.

The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.

Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.

Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.

“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.

“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.

He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.

“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.

He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”

Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.

The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”

During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.

“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.

Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.

The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A restrictive blood transfusion strategy in myocardial infarction patients with anemia proved safe, significantly less costly, and at least as effective as the standard liberal transfusion strategy in the landmark REALITY trial.

Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.

Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.

“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.

The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.

In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.

The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.

Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.

Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.

“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.

“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.

He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.

“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.

He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”

Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.

The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”

During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.

“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.

Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.

The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

The first revision since 2015 to the European Society of Cardiology’s guidelines for diagnosing and managing non ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome placed increased reliance on high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing for diagnosis, and embraced coronary CT to rule out lower-risk patients.

It also highlighted the need for personalized antiplatelet regimens, systems of care, and quality improvement.

The society released the new guidelines on August 29 (Eur Heart J. 2020 Aug 29;doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575), and then devoted a session to them the next day at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology to highlight some of the key updates, starting with the further emphasis placed on high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn), a reliance that contrasts with what remains inconsistent use of this metric in U.S. practice.

An hs-cTn test is the “preferred” diagnostic test and a “key” testing element, said Marco Roffi, MD, professor and director of interventional cardiology at University Hospital, Geneva, and a member of the guideline committee. He also stressed an update to the time frame of initial hs-cTn testing, which now involves a baseline reading and then a second measure after 2 hours to discern how the marker level is evolving with time. The guidelines advise against measuring any other biomarker of myocardial injury.
 

U.S. lags in measuring high-sensitivity cardiac troponin

U.S. medical systems and centers “are not uniform in adopting hs-cTn,” noted Richard J. Kovacs, MD, professor of cardiology at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis. “The new European guidelines should spur U.S. institutions to at least take a close look at the advantages of hs-cTn. There is a strong case that it leads to more efficient emergency care and allows for quicker decisions and triage,” added Dr. Kovacs in an interview.

The new guideline’s emphasis on hs-cTn should hasten broader uptake in U.S. practice, agreed Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and a member of the guideline-writing panel

Another plus of the guidelines is its endorsement of an “organized approach to risk assessment” early on in these patients, said Dr. Kovacs, who is also the immediate past-president of the American College of Cardiology (ACC). An ACC committee is developing a new set of recommendations for managing patients with cardiac chest pain and is on track for release in 2021. It would represent the first update to U.S. guidelines for non ST-elevation ACS patients since 2014.

The new ESC guidelines give coronary CT angiography a class Ia rating as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography for assessing patients with a low or intermediate risk of having coronary disease, a “tremendous upgrade,” commented Ashish Pershad, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Banner-University Medical Heart Institute in Phoenix. While he welcomes this support for using coronary CT angiography in this setting, he acknowledged that the method remains limited in availability as it requires highly trained technicians to obtain good images and experienced clinicians to interpret the results.

Personalizing antiplatelet and antithrombotic treatments

Notable revisions to medical treatments to minimize ischemia included an admonition not to use routine pretreatment with a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor (such as clopidogrel) before testing determines coronary anatomy.

Not using one of these antiplatelet drugs upfront on all patients “is a tremendous change,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. Many patients currently get these drugs while awaiting an angiogram, but a more selected and deferred antiplatelet approach would be better when angiography shows that some patients need coronary bypass surgery, he noted. Recent study results have shown no added benefit from pretreatment, and its use can be especially problematic for patients who are slated for a planned invasive strategy, said Dr. Bhatt.

Dr. Pershad, Dr. Bhatt, and Dr. Kovacs all praised the overall emphasis on a personalized approach to treating patients with antiplatelet and antithrombotic drugs, with endorsement of a flexible approach to treatment intensity and duration. The guideline acknowledges the need to take into account a patient’s bleeding risk and comorbidities, and specifically endorsed the Academic Research Consortium’s formula for identifying and stratifying high bleeding risk (Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 14;40[31]:2632-53).

The new guidelines also provide guidance on how to apply recent study results that addressed balancing efficacy and safety when pairing an antiplatelet drug with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for patients who potentially need both drug classes, such as patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent ACS event. “It’s tremendous to get clarity on this issue; there’s been a lot of uncertainty,” said Dr. Pershad. The guidelines call for a week of triple therapy with a DOAC, aspirin, and a second antiplatelet drug, followed by 12 months on a DOAC plus a single antiplatelet drug, and then the DOAC alone as the “default” strategy for most patients, but also presents alternative options for patients with high risk for either bleeding or ischemia.

The new guidelines also give much-needed direction on how to apply an invasive strategy, with an emphasis on immediate intervention for within 2 hours for very-high-risk patients, and early intervention within 24 hours for high-risk patients. Adhering to this timetable can mean increasing catheter laboratory availability on an urgent basis over weekends, Dr. Bhatt noted.
 

Improving quality of care

A novel section in the new guidelines was devoted to nine quality measures that can help health systems and medical centers monitor their adherence to the guideline recommendations, track their performance relative to peer institutions, and follow changes in performance that result from quality improvement steps. It’s something of a “futuristic” step for a guideline to take, with a goal of persuading administrators to implement tracking of these measures and improve patient outcomes, noted Dr. Bhatt.

“It’s very important to see that this is not just a set of guidelines but also a tool to improve quality of care,” commented Dr. Kovacs. The key to success in this effort will be to follow registered patients, set benchmarks that systems can aspire to achieve, and use this to improve the quality of care.

Until now, optimizing care for patients with NSTE-ACS has been “challenging,” he said. “The focus must be on moving toward systems of care” that can provide consistent patient evaluation and care, and do it quickly, said Dr. Kovacs.

Dr. Roffi has received research funding from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, GE Healthcare, and Medtronic. Dr. Kovacs was formerly an employee of Eli Lilly. Dr. Bhatt has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies. Dr. Pershad had no disclosures.
 

[email protected]

The first revision since 2015 to the European Society of Cardiology’s guidelines for diagnosing and managing non ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome placed increased reliance on high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing for diagnosis, and embraced coronary CT to rule out lower-risk patients.

It also highlighted the need for personalized antiplatelet regimens, systems of care, and quality improvement.

The society released the new guidelines on August 29 (Eur Heart J. 2020 Aug 29;doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575), and then devoted a session to them the next day at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology to highlight some of the key updates, starting with the further emphasis placed on high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn), a reliance that contrasts with what remains inconsistent use of this metric in U.S. practice.

An hs-cTn test is the “preferred” diagnostic test and a “key” testing element, said Marco Roffi, MD, professor and director of interventional cardiology at University Hospital, Geneva, and a member of the guideline committee. He also stressed an update to the time frame of initial hs-cTn testing, which now involves a baseline reading and then a second measure after 2 hours to discern how the marker level is evolving with time. The guidelines advise against measuring any other biomarker of myocardial injury.
 

U.S. lags in measuring high-sensitivity cardiac troponin

U.S. medical systems and centers “are not uniform in adopting hs-cTn,” noted Richard J. Kovacs, MD, professor of cardiology at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis. “The new European guidelines should spur U.S. institutions to at least take a close look at the advantages of hs-cTn. There is a strong case that it leads to more efficient emergency care and allows for quicker decisions and triage,” added Dr. Kovacs in an interview.

The new guideline’s emphasis on hs-cTn should hasten broader uptake in U.S. practice, agreed Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and a member of the guideline-writing panel

Another plus of the guidelines is its endorsement of an “organized approach to risk assessment” early on in these patients, said Dr. Kovacs, who is also the immediate past-president of the American College of Cardiology (ACC). An ACC committee is developing a new set of recommendations for managing patients with cardiac chest pain and is on track for release in 2021. It would represent the first update to U.S. guidelines for non ST-elevation ACS patients since 2014.

The new ESC guidelines give coronary CT angiography a class Ia rating as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography for assessing patients with a low or intermediate risk of having coronary disease, a “tremendous upgrade,” commented Ashish Pershad, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Banner-University Medical Heart Institute in Phoenix. While he welcomes this support for using coronary CT angiography in this setting, he acknowledged that the method remains limited in availability as it requires highly trained technicians to obtain good images and experienced clinicians to interpret the results.

Personalizing antiplatelet and antithrombotic treatments

Notable revisions to medical treatments to minimize ischemia included an admonition not to use routine pretreatment with a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor (such as clopidogrel) before testing determines coronary anatomy.

Not using one of these antiplatelet drugs upfront on all patients “is a tremendous change,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. Many patients currently get these drugs while awaiting an angiogram, but a more selected and deferred antiplatelet approach would be better when angiography shows that some patients need coronary bypass surgery, he noted. Recent study results have shown no added benefit from pretreatment, and its use can be especially problematic for patients who are slated for a planned invasive strategy, said Dr. Bhatt.

Dr. Pershad, Dr. Bhatt, and Dr. Kovacs all praised the overall emphasis on a personalized approach to treating patients with antiplatelet and antithrombotic drugs, with endorsement of a flexible approach to treatment intensity and duration. The guideline acknowledges the need to take into account a patient’s bleeding risk and comorbidities, and specifically endorsed the Academic Research Consortium’s formula for identifying and stratifying high bleeding risk (Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 14;40[31]:2632-53).

The new guidelines also provide guidance on how to apply recent study results that addressed balancing efficacy and safety when pairing an antiplatelet drug with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for patients who potentially need both drug classes, such as patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent ACS event. “It’s tremendous to get clarity on this issue; there’s been a lot of uncertainty,” said Dr. Pershad. The guidelines call for a week of triple therapy with a DOAC, aspirin, and a second antiplatelet drug, followed by 12 months on a DOAC plus a single antiplatelet drug, and then the DOAC alone as the “default” strategy for most patients, but also presents alternative options for patients with high risk for either bleeding or ischemia.

The new guidelines also give much-needed direction on how to apply an invasive strategy, with an emphasis on immediate intervention for within 2 hours for very-high-risk patients, and early intervention within 24 hours for high-risk patients. Adhering to this timetable can mean increasing catheter laboratory availability on an urgent basis over weekends, Dr. Bhatt noted.
 

Improving quality of care

A novel section in the new guidelines was devoted to nine quality measures that can help health systems and medical centers monitor their adherence to the guideline recommendations, track their performance relative to peer institutions, and follow changes in performance that result from quality improvement steps. It’s something of a “futuristic” step for a guideline to take, with a goal of persuading administrators to implement tracking of these measures and improve patient outcomes, noted Dr. Bhatt.

“It’s very important to see that this is not just a set of guidelines but also a tool to improve quality of care,” commented Dr. Kovacs. The key to success in this effort will be to follow registered patients, set benchmarks that systems can aspire to achieve, and use this to improve the quality of care.

Until now, optimizing care for patients with NSTE-ACS has been “challenging,” he said. “The focus must be on moving toward systems of care” that can provide consistent patient evaluation and care, and do it quickly, said Dr. Kovacs.

Dr. Roffi has received research funding from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, GE Healthcare, and Medtronic. Dr. Kovacs was formerly an employee of Eli Lilly. Dr. Bhatt has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies. Dr. Pershad had no disclosures.
 

[email protected]

The first revision since 2015 to the European Society of Cardiology’s guidelines for diagnosing and managing non ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome placed increased reliance on high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing for diagnosis, and embraced coronary CT to rule out lower-risk patients.

It also highlighted the need for personalized antiplatelet regimens, systems of care, and quality improvement.

The society released the new guidelines on August 29 (Eur Heart J. 2020 Aug 29;doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575), and then devoted a session to them the next day at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology to highlight some of the key updates, starting with the further emphasis placed on high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn), a reliance that contrasts with what remains inconsistent use of this metric in U.S. practice.

An hs-cTn test is the “preferred” diagnostic test and a “key” testing element, said Marco Roffi, MD, professor and director of interventional cardiology at University Hospital, Geneva, and a member of the guideline committee. He also stressed an update to the time frame of initial hs-cTn testing, which now involves a baseline reading and then a second measure after 2 hours to discern how the marker level is evolving with time. The guidelines advise against measuring any other biomarker of myocardial injury.
 

U.S. lags in measuring high-sensitivity cardiac troponin

U.S. medical systems and centers “are not uniform in adopting hs-cTn,” noted Richard J. Kovacs, MD, professor of cardiology at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis. “The new European guidelines should spur U.S. institutions to at least take a close look at the advantages of hs-cTn. There is a strong case that it leads to more efficient emergency care and allows for quicker decisions and triage,” added Dr. Kovacs in an interview.

The new guideline’s emphasis on hs-cTn should hasten broader uptake in U.S. practice, agreed Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and a member of the guideline-writing panel

Another plus of the guidelines is its endorsement of an “organized approach to risk assessment” early on in these patients, said Dr. Kovacs, who is also the immediate past-president of the American College of Cardiology (ACC). An ACC committee is developing a new set of recommendations for managing patients with cardiac chest pain and is on track for release in 2021. It would represent the first update to U.S. guidelines for non ST-elevation ACS patients since 2014.

The new ESC guidelines give coronary CT angiography a class Ia rating as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography for assessing patients with a low or intermediate risk of having coronary disease, a “tremendous upgrade,” commented Ashish Pershad, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Banner-University Medical Heart Institute in Phoenix. While he welcomes this support for using coronary CT angiography in this setting, he acknowledged that the method remains limited in availability as it requires highly trained technicians to obtain good images and experienced clinicians to interpret the results.

Personalizing antiplatelet and antithrombotic treatments

Notable revisions to medical treatments to minimize ischemia included an admonition not to use routine pretreatment with a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor (such as clopidogrel) before testing determines coronary anatomy.

Not using one of these antiplatelet drugs upfront on all patients “is a tremendous change,” Dr. Pershad said in an interview. Many patients currently get these drugs while awaiting an angiogram, but a more selected and deferred antiplatelet approach would be better when angiography shows that some patients need coronary bypass surgery, he noted. Recent study results have shown no added benefit from pretreatment, and its use can be especially problematic for patients who are slated for a planned invasive strategy, said Dr. Bhatt.

Dr. Pershad, Dr. Bhatt, and Dr. Kovacs all praised the overall emphasis on a personalized approach to treating patients with antiplatelet and antithrombotic drugs, with endorsement of a flexible approach to treatment intensity and duration. The guideline acknowledges the need to take into account a patient’s bleeding risk and comorbidities, and specifically endorsed the Academic Research Consortium’s formula for identifying and stratifying high bleeding risk (Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 14;40[31]:2632-53).

The new guidelines also provide guidance on how to apply recent study results that addressed balancing efficacy and safety when pairing an antiplatelet drug with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for patients who potentially need both drug classes, such as patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent ACS event. “It’s tremendous to get clarity on this issue; there’s been a lot of uncertainty,” said Dr. Pershad. The guidelines call for a week of triple therapy with a DOAC, aspirin, and a second antiplatelet drug, followed by 12 months on a DOAC plus a single antiplatelet drug, and then the DOAC alone as the “default” strategy for most patients, but also presents alternative options for patients with high risk for either bleeding or ischemia.

The new guidelines also give much-needed direction on how to apply an invasive strategy, with an emphasis on immediate intervention for within 2 hours for very-high-risk patients, and early intervention within 24 hours for high-risk patients. Adhering to this timetable can mean increasing catheter laboratory availability on an urgent basis over weekends, Dr. Bhatt noted.
 

Improving quality of care

A novel section in the new guidelines was devoted to nine quality measures that can help health systems and medical centers monitor their adherence to the guideline recommendations, track their performance relative to peer institutions, and follow changes in performance that result from quality improvement steps. It’s something of a “futuristic” step for a guideline to take, with a goal of persuading administrators to implement tracking of these measures and improve patient outcomes, noted Dr. Bhatt.

“It’s very important to see that this is not just a set of guidelines but also a tool to improve quality of care,” commented Dr. Kovacs. The key to success in this effort will be to follow registered patients, set benchmarks that systems can aspire to achieve, and use this to improve the quality of care.

Until now, optimizing care for patients with NSTE-ACS has been “challenging,” he said. “The focus must be on moving toward systems of care” that can provide consistent patient evaluation and care, and do it quickly, said Dr. Kovacs.

Dr. Roffi has received research funding from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, GE Healthcare, and Medtronic. Dr. Kovacs was formerly an employee of Eli Lilly. Dr. Bhatt has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies. Dr. Pershad had no disclosures.
 

[email protected]

Adding trimetazidine to optimal medical therapy does not improve outcomes following successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable angina or a non–ST-elevated myocardial infarction, results of the ATPCI trial show.

There was no benefit for the composite primary endpoint of cardiac death, hospitalization for cardiac events, or recurrent/persistent angina requiring an addition, switch, or increased dose of antianginal therapies, or requiring coronary angiography (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.09).

• Cardiac death: 2.1% vs. 2.6% (HR, 0.81)
• Hospital admission for cardiac events: 13.4% vs. 13.4% (HR, 1.01)
• Angina leading to coronary angiography: 16.9% vs. 16.6% (HR, 1.02)
• Angina leading to increase/switch in antianginal drugs (HR, 1.01)

There was no between-group difference in the composite major secondary endpoint, which included the primary endpoint components plus ischemia leading to coronary angiography and an increase or switch in antianginal therapies. This outcome occurred in 23.5% and 24.0% of patients in the trimetazidine and control groups, respectively (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.08).

Results were also similar when the primary endpoint was analyzed based on whether patients underwent elective PCI (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08) or urgent PCI (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.88-1.22), Dr. Ferrari reported.

Given the lack of observed efficacy, trimetazidine has no use or place in the population studied, said Stephan Windecker, MD, the formal discussant for the study and chair of cardiology at Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital. “Notwithstanding, I think we have to recognize that the optimal medical therapy is so potent and has been well implemented in this trial that any additional medication beyond this is just unable to exploit additional benefit.”

The study was supported by Servier. Dr. Ferrari received fees, honoraria, and travel expenses from Servier. Dr. Ohman reports no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Windecker is an unpaid member of the steering/executive group for trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, BMS, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliancé, Medtronic, Polares, Sinomed, V-Wave, and Xeltis but has not received personal payments from any pharmaceutical or device company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding trimetazidine to optimal medical therapy does not improve outcomes following successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable angina or a non–ST-elevated myocardial infarction, results of the ATPCI trial show.

There was no benefit for the composite primary endpoint of cardiac death, hospitalization for cardiac events, or recurrent/persistent angina requiring an addition, switch, or increased dose of antianginal therapies, or requiring coronary angiography (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.09).

• Cardiac death: 2.1% vs. 2.6% (HR, 0.81)
• Hospital admission for cardiac events: 13.4% vs. 13.4% (HR, 1.01)
• Angina leading to coronary angiography: 16.9% vs. 16.6% (HR, 1.02)
• Angina leading to increase/switch in antianginal drugs (HR, 1.01)

There was no between-group difference in the composite major secondary endpoint, which included the primary endpoint components plus ischemia leading to coronary angiography and an increase or switch in antianginal therapies. This outcome occurred in 23.5% and 24.0% of patients in the trimetazidine and control groups, respectively (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.08).

Results were also similar when the primary endpoint was analyzed based on whether patients underwent elective PCI (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08) or urgent PCI (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.88-1.22), Dr. Ferrari reported.

Given the lack of observed efficacy, trimetazidine has no use or place in the population studied, said Stephan Windecker, MD, the formal discussant for the study and chair of cardiology at Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital. “Notwithstanding, I think we have to recognize that the optimal medical therapy is so potent and has been well implemented in this trial that any additional medication beyond this is just unable to exploit additional benefit.”

The study was supported by Servier. Dr. Ferrari received fees, honoraria, and travel expenses from Servier. Dr. Ohman reports no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Windecker is an unpaid member of the steering/executive group for trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, BMS, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliancé, Medtronic, Polares, Sinomed, V-Wave, and Xeltis but has not received personal payments from any pharmaceutical or device company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding trimetazidine to optimal medical therapy does not improve outcomes following successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable angina or a non–ST-elevated myocardial infarction, results of the ATPCI trial show.

There was no benefit for the composite primary endpoint of cardiac death, hospitalization for cardiac events, or recurrent/persistent angina requiring an addition, switch, or increased dose of antianginal therapies, or requiring coronary angiography (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.09).

• Cardiac death: 2.1% vs. 2.6% (HR, 0.81)
• Hospital admission for cardiac events: 13.4% vs. 13.4% (HR, 1.01)
• Angina leading to coronary angiography: 16.9% vs. 16.6% (HR, 1.02)
• Angina leading to increase/switch in antianginal drugs (HR, 1.01)

There was no between-group difference in the composite major secondary endpoint, which included the primary endpoint components plus ischemia leading to coronary angiography and an increase or switch in antianginal therapies. This outcome occurred in 23.5% and 24.0% of patients in the trimetazidine and control groups, respectively (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.08).

Results were also similar when the primary endpoint was analyzed based on whether patients underwent elective PCI (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08) or urgent PCI (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.88-1.22), Dr. Ferrari reported.

Given the lack of observed efficacy, trimetazidine has no use or place in the population studied, said Stephan Windecker, MD, the formal discussant for the study and chair of cardiology at Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital. “Notwithstanding, I think we have to recognize that the optimal medical therapy is so potent and has been well implemented in this trial that any additional medication beyond this is just unable to exploit additional benefit.”

The study was supported by Servier. Dr. Ferrari received fees, honoraria, and travel expenses from Servier. Dr. Ohman reports no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Windecker is an unpaid member of the steering/executive group for trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, BMS, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliancé, Medtronic, Polares, Sinomed, V-Wave, and Xeltis but has not received personal payments from any pharmaceutical or device company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created unique and unprecedented challenges for the clinical research world, with potentially long-lasting consequences.

A new analysis of the extent of disruption shows that the average rate of stopped trials nearly doubled during the first 5 months of 2020, compared with the 2 previous years.

“Typically, clinical research precedes clinical practice by several years, so this disruption we’re seeing now will be felt for many years to come,” said Mario Guadino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

The analysis was published online July 31 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The researchers used Python software to query meta-data from all trials reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 321,218 non-COVID-19 trials queried, 28,672 (8.9%) were reported as stopped, defined as a switch in trial status from “recruiting” to “active and not recruiting,” “completed,” “suspended,” “terminated,” or “withdrawn.”

The average rate of discontinuation was 638 trials/month from January 2017 to December 2019, rising to 1,147 trials/month between January 2020 and May 2020 (P < .001 for trend).

Once stopped (as opposed to paused), restarting a trial is a tricky prospect, said Dr. Guadino. “You can’t stop and restart a trial because it creates a lot of issues, so we should expect many of these stopped trials to never be completed.”

He said these figures likely represent an underestimate of the true impact of the pandemic because there is typically a delay in the updating of the status of a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.

“We are likely looking only at the tip of the iceberg,” he added. “My impression is that the number of trials that will be affected and even canceled will be very high.”

As for cardiology trials, one of the report’s authors, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, without naming specific trials, had this to say: “Several cardiovascular trials were paused, and some were permanently discontinued. It may be a while before we fully appreciate just how much information was lost and how much might be salvaged.”

He’s not worried, however, that upcoming cardiology meetings, which have moved online for the foreseeable future, might get a bit boring. “Fortunately, there is enough good work going on in the cardiovascular and cardiometabolic space that I believe there will still be ample randomized and observational data of high quality to present at the major meetings,” Dr. Bhatt said in an email.

The researchers found a weak correlation between the national population-adjusted numbers of COVID-19 cases and the proportion of non-COVID-19 trials stopped by country.

Even for trials that stopped recruiting for a period of time but are continuing, there are myriad issues involving compliance, data integrity, statistical interpretability, etc.

“Even if there is just a temporary disruption, that will most likely lead to reduced enrollment, missing follow-up visits, and protocol deviations, all things that would be red flags during normal times and impact the quality of the clinical trial,” said Dr. Guadino.

“And if your outcome of interest is mortality, well, how exactly do you measure that during a pandemic?” he added.
 

Stopped for lack of funding

Besides the logistical issues, another reason trials may be in jeopardy is funding. A warning early in the pandemic from the research community in Canada that funding was quickly drying up, leaving both jobs and data at risk, led to an aid package from the government to keep the lights on.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and similar groups “have devoted large sums of money to research in COVID, which is of course very appropriate, but that clearly reduces the amount of funding that is available for other researchers,” said Dr. Guadino.

Some funding agencies around the world have canceled or put on hold all non-COVID-19 clinical trials still at the design state, Dr. Guadino said in an interview.

The NIH, he stressed, has not canceled funding and has been “extremely open and cooperative” in trying to help trialists navigate the many COVID-generated issues. They’ve even issued guidance on how to manage trials during COVID-19.

Of note, in the survey, the majority of the trials stopped (95.4%) had nongovernmental funding.

“The data are not very granular, so we’re only able to make some very simple, descriptive comments, but it does seem like the more fragile trials – those that are smaller and industry-funded – are the ones more likely to be disrupted,” said Dr. Guadino.

In some cases, he said, priorities have shifted to COVID-19. “If a small company is sponsoring a trial and they decide they want to sponsor something related to COVID, or they realize that because of the slow enrollment, the trial becomes too expensive to complete, they may opt to just abandon it,” said Dr. Guadino.

At what cost? It will take years to sort that out, he said.

This study received no funding. Dr. Guadino and Dr. Bhatt are both active trialists, participating in both industry- and government-sponsored clinical research.
 

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has created unique and unprecedented challenges for the clinical research world, with potentially long-lasting consequences.

A new analysis of the extent of disruption shows that the average rate of stopped trials nearly doubled during the first 5 months of 2020, compared with the 2 previous years.

“Typically, clinical research precedes clinical practice by several years, so this disruption we’re seeing now will be felt for many years to come,” said Mario Guadino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

The analysis was published online July 31 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The researchers used Python software to query meta-data from all trials reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 321,218 non-COVID-19 trials queried, 28,672 (8.9%) were reported as stopped, defined as a switch in trial status from “recruiting” to “active and not recruiting,” “completed,” “suspended,” “terminated,” or “withdrawn.”

The average rate of discontinuation was 638 trials/month from January 2017 to December 2019, rising to 1,147 trials/month between January 2020 and May 2020 (P < .001 for trend).

Once stopped (as opposed to paused), restarting a trial is a tricky prospect, said Dr. Guadino. “You can’t stop and restart a trial because it creates a lot of issues, so we should expect many of these stopped trials to never be completed.”

He said these figures likely represent an underestimate of the true impact of the pandemic because there is typically a delay in the updating of the status of a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.

“We are likely looking only at the tip of the iceberg,” he added. “My impression is that the number of trials that will be affected and even canceled will be very high.”

As for cardiology trials, one of the report’s authors, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, without naming specific trials, had this to say: “Several cardiovascular trials were paused, and some were permanently discontinued. It may be a while before we fully appreciate just how much information was lost and how much might be salvaged.”

He’s not worried, however, that upcoming cardiology meetings, which have moved online for the foreseeable future, might get a bit boring. “Fortunately, there is enough good work going on in the cardiovascular and cardiometabolic space that I believe there will still be ample randomized and observational data of high quality to present at the major meetings,” Dr. Bhatt said in an email.

The researchers found a weak correlation between the national population-adjusted numbers of COVID-19 cases and the proportion of non-COVID-19 trials stopped by country.

Even for trials that stopped recruiting for a period of time but are continuing, there are myriad issues involving compliance, data integrity, statistical interpretability, etc.

“Even if there is just a temporary disruption, that will most likely lead to reduced enrollment, missing follow-up visits, and protocol deviations, all things that would be red flags during normal times and impact the quality of the clinical trial,” said Dr. Guadino.

“And if your outcome of interest is mortality, well, how exactly do you measure that during a pandemic?” he added.
 

Stopped for lack of funding

Besides the logistical issues, another reason trials may be in jeopardy is funding. A warning early in the pandemic from the research community in Canada that funding was quickly drying up, leaving both jobs and data at risk, led to an aid package from the government to keep the lights on.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and similar groups “have devoted large sums of money to research in COVID, which is of course very appropriate, but that clearly reduces the amount of funding that is available for other researchers,” said Dr. Guadino.

Some funding agencies around the world have canceled or put on hold all non-COVID-19 clinical trials still at the design state, Dr. Guadino said in an interview.

The NIH, he stressed, has not canceled funding and has been “extremely open and cooperative” in trying to help trialists navigate the many COVID-generated issues. They’ve even issued guidance on how to manage trials during COVID-19.

Of note, in the survey, the majority of the trials stopped (95.4%) had nongovernmental funding.

“The data are not very granular, so we’re only able to make some very simple, descriptive comments, but it does seem like the more fragile trials – those that are smaller and industry-funded – are the ones more likely to be disrupted,” said Dr. Guadino.

In some cases, he said, priorities have shifted to COVID-19. “If a small company is sponsoring a trial and they decide they want to sponsor something related to COVID, or they realize that because of the slow enrollment, the trial becomes too expensive to complete, they may opt to just abandon it,” said Dr. Guadino.

At what cost? It will take years to sort that out, he said.

This study received no funding. Dr. Guadino and Dr. Bhatt are both active trialists, participating in both industry- and government-sponsored clinical research.
 

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has created unique and unprecedented challenges for the clinical research world, with potentially long-lasting consequences.

A new analysis of the extent of disruption shows that the average rate of stopped trials nearly doubled during the first 5 months of 2020, compared with the 2 previous years.

“Typically, clinical research precedes clinical practice by several years, so this disruption we’re seeing now will be felt for many years to come,” said Mario Guadino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

The analysis was published online July 31 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The researchers used Python software to query meta-data from all trials reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 321,218 non-COVID-19 trials queried, 28,672 (8.9%) were reported as stopped, defined as a switch in trial status from “recruiting” to “active and not recruiting,” “completed,” “suspended,” “terminated,” or “withdrawn.”

The average rate of discontinuation was 638 trials/month from January 2017 to December 2019, rising to 1,147 trials/month between January 2020 and May 2020 (P < .001 for trend).

Once stopped (as opposed to paused), restarting a trial is a tricky prospect, said Dr. Guadino. “You can’t stop and restart a trial because it creates a lot of issues, so we should expect many of these stopped trials to never be completed.”

He said these figures likely represent an underestimate of the true impact of the pandemic because there is typically a delay in the updating of the status of a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.

“We are likely looking only at the tip of the iceberg,” he added. “My impression is that the number of trials that will be affected and even canceled will be very high.”

As for cardiology trials, one of the report’s authors, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, without naming specific trials, had this to say: “Several cardiovascular trials were paused, and some were permanently discontinued. It may be a while before we fully appreciate just how much information was lost and how much might be salvaged.”

He’s not worried, however, that upcoming cardiology meetings, which have moved online for the foreseeable future, might get a bit boring. “Fortunately, there is enough good work going on in the cardiovascular and cardiometabolic space that I believe there will still be ample randomized and observational data of high quality to present at the major meetings,” Dr. Bhatt said in an email.

The researchers found a weak correlation between the national population-adjusted numbers of COVID-19 cases and the proportion of non-COVID-19 trials stopped by country.

Even for trials that stopped recruiting for a period of time but are continuing, there are myriad issues involving compliance, data integrity, statistical interpretability, etc.

“Even if there is just a temporary disruption, that will most likely lead to reduced enrollment, missing follow-up visits, and protocol deviations, all things that would be red flags during normal times and impact the quality of the clinical trial,” said Dr. Guadino.

“And if your outcome of interest is mortality, well, how exactly do you measure that during a pandemic?” he added.
 

Stopped for lack of funding

Besides the logistical issues, another reason trials may be in jeopardy is funding. A warning early in the pandemic from the research community in Canada that funding was quickly drying up, leaving both jobs and data at risk, led to an aid package from the government to keep the lights on.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and similar groups “have devoted large sums of money to research in COVID, which is of course very appropriate, but that clearly reduces the amount of funding that is available for other researchers,” said Dr. Guadino.

Some funding agencies around the world have canceled or put on hold all non-COVID-19 clinical trials still at the design state, Dr. Guadino said in an interview.

The NIH, he stressed, has not canceled funding and has been “extremely open and cooperative” in trying to help trialists navigate the many COVID-generated issues. They’ve even issued guidance on how to manage trials during COVID-19.

Of note, in the survey, the majority of the trials stopped (95.4%) had nongovernmental funding.

“The data are not very granular, so we’re only able to make some very simple, descriptive comments, but it does seem like the more fragile trials – those that are smaller and industry-funded – are the ones more likely to be disrupted,” said Dr. Guadino.

In some cases, he said, priorities have shifted to COVID-19. “If a small company is sponsoring a trial and they decide they want to sponsor something related to COVID, or they realize that because of the slow enrollment, the trial becomes too expensive to complete, they may opt to just abandon it,” said Dr. Guadino.

At what cost? It will take years to sort that out, he said.

This study received no funding. Dr. Guadino and Dr. Bhatt are both active trialists, participating in both industry- and government-sponsored clinical research.
 

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

A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.

Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.

The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.

When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.

The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.

The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
 

Differences in mortality, patients, treatment

In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).

The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).

The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
 

More than fear of COVID-19?

One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.

“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.

In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.

“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”

Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.

More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.

“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”

The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.

A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.

Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.

The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.

When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.

The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.

The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
 

Differences in mortality, patients, treatment

In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).

The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).

The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
 

More than fear of COVID-19?

One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.

“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.

In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.

“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”

Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.

More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.

“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”

The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.

A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.

Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.

The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.

When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.

The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.

The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
 

Differences in mortality, patients, treatment

In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).

The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).

The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
 

More than fear of COVID-19?

One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.

“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.

In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.

“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”

Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.

More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.

“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”

The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.