User login
FDA reiterates hydroxychloroquine limitations for COVID-19
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.
The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”
In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.
“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.
The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.
The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.
The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.
The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”
In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.
“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.
The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.
The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.
The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.
The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”
In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.
“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.
The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.
The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.
The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
FROM THE FDA
Angiotensin drugs and COVID-19: More reassuring data
Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.
The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.
The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.
The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.
Additional studies
Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.
And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.
The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.
Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
New Wuhan study
The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.
Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.
Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).
Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.
Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.
The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.
Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).
Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).
The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.
The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.
But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”
They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.
However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.
This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.
But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
Experts cautiously optimistic
Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.
Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.
“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.
“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.
“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.
John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”
However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.
“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.
Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”
Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”
Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.
“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.
“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.
The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.
The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.
The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.
The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.
Additional studies
Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.
And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.
The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.
Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
New Wuhan study
The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.
Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.
Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).
Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.
Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.
The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.
Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).
Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).
The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.
The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.
But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”
They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.
However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.
This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.
But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
Experts cautiously optimistic
Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.
Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.
“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.
“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.
“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.
John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”
However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.
“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.
Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”
Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”
Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.
“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.
“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.
The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.
The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.
The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.
The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.
Additional studies
Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.
And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.
The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.
Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
New Wuhan study
The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.
Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.
Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).
Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.
Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.
The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.
Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).
Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).
The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.
The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.
But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”
They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.
However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.
This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.
But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
Experts cautiously optimistic
Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.
Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.
“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.
“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.
“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.
John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”
However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.
“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.
Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”
Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”
Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.
“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.
“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.
The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Hydroxychloroquine ineffective for COVID-19, VA study suggests
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) is not associated with a lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, according to a retrospective study of Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
The study, which was posted on a preprint server April 21 and has not been peer reviewed, also showed an increased risk of death associated with COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ alone.
“These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs,” write Joseph Magagnoli with Dorn Research Institute at the Columbia (S.C.) VA Health Care System and the department of clinical pharmacy & outcomes sciences, University of South Carolina, and colleagues.
A spokesperson with the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where several of coauthors practice, said that the authors declined to comment for this article before peer review is completed.
The new data are not the first to suggest no benefit with HCQ among patients with COVID-19. A randomized trial showed no benefit and more side effects among 75 patients in China treated with HCQ, compared with 75 who received standard of care alone, according to a preprint posted online April 14.
No benefit in ventilation, death rates
The current analysis included data from all 368 male patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and treated at Veterans Health Administration medical centers in the United States through April 11.
Patients were categorized into three groups: those treated with HCQ in addition to standard of care (n = 97); those treated with HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin plus standard of care (n = 113); and those who received standard supportive care only (n = 158).
Compared with the no HCQ group, the risk of death from any cause was higher in the HCQ group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-6.17; P = .03) but not in the HCQ+AZ group (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.56-2.32; P = .72).
The risk of ventilation was similar in the HCQ group (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.53-3.79; P = .48) and in the HCQ+AZ group (aHR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.16-1.12; P = .09), compared with the no-HCQ group.
This study provides another counterbalance to claims of HCQ efficacy, David R. Wessner, PhD, professor of biology and chair of the department of health and human values at Davidson (N.C.) College, said in an interview.
Interest in HCQ spiked after an open-label, nonrandomized, single-center study of COVID-19 patients in France suggested that hydroxychloroquine helped clear the virus and had a potential enhanced effect when combined with azithromycin.
But the 36-patient trial has since been called into question.
Wait for convincing data
Dr. Wessner, whose research focuses on viral pathogenesis, says that, although the current data don’t definitively answer the question of whether HCQ is effective in treating COVID-19, taking a “let’s try it and see” approach is not reasonable.
“Until we have good, prospective randomized trials, it’s hard to know what to make of this. But this is more evidence that there’s not a good reason to use [HCQ],” Dr. Wessner said. He points out that the small randomized trial from China shows that HCQ comes with potential harms.
Anecdotal evidence is often cited by those who promote HCQ as a potential treatment, but “those are one-off examples,” Wessner continued. “That doesn’t really tell us anything.”
Some HCQ proponents have said that trials finding no benefit are flawed in that the drug is given too late. However, Dr. Wessner says, there’s no way to prove or disprove that claim without randomized controlled trials.
Conflicting messages
Despite lack of clear evidence of benefit for patients with COVID-19, HCQ is recommended off-label by the Chinese National guideline, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19.
Conversely, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a guideline panel convened by the National Institutes of Health each concluded recently that because of insufficient data, they could not recommend any specific treatments for patients with COVID-19.
The VA data for the current study came from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, which includes inpatient, outpatient and laboratory data and pharmacy claims.
The authors acknowledge some limitations, “including those inherent to all retrospective analyses such as nonrandomization of treatments.”
However, they note that they did adjust for potential confounders, including comorbidities, medications, and clinical and laboratory factors.
A coauthor, Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, is a cofounder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. Dr. Ambati is named as an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to COVID-19 but unrelated to this work. Another coauthor has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors and Dr. Wessner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) is not associated with a lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, according to a retrospective study of Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
The study, which was posted on a preprint server April 21 and has not been peer reviewed, also showed an increased risk of death associated with COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ alone.
“These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs,” write Joseph Magagnoli with Dorn Research Institute at the Columbia (S.C.) VA Health Care System and the department of clinical pharmacy & outcomes sciences, University of South Carolina, and colleagues.
A spokesperson with the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where several of coauthors practice, said that the authors declined to comment for this article before peer review is completed.
The new data are not the first to suggest no benefit with HCQ among patients with COVID-19. A randomized trial showed no benefit and more side effects among 75 patients in China treated with HCQ, compared with 75 who received standard of care alone, according to a preprint posted online April 14.
No benefit in ventilation, death rates
The current analysis included data from all 368 male patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and treated at Veterans Health Administration medical centers in the United States through April 11.
Patients were categorized into three groups: those treated with HCQ in addition to standard of care (n = 97); those treated with HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin plus standard of care (n = 113); and those who received standard supportive care only (n = 158).
Compared with the no HCQ group, the risk of death from any cause was higher in the HCQ group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-6.17; P = .03) but not in the HCQ+AZ group (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.56-2.32; P = .72).
The risk of ventilation was similar in the HCQ group (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.53-3.79; P = .48) and in the HCQ+AZ group (aHR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.16-1.12; P = .09), compared with the no-HCQ group.
This study provides another counterbalance to claims of HCQ efficacy, David R. Wessner, PhD, professor of biology and chair of the department of health and human values at Davidson (N.C.) College, said in an interview.
Interest in HCQ spiked after an open-label, nonrandomized, single-center study of COVID-19 patients in France suggested that hydroxychloroquine helped clear the virus and had a potential enhanced effect when combined with azithromycin.
But the 36-patient trial has since been called into question.
Wait for convincing data
Dr. Wessner, whose research focuses on viral pathogenesis, says that, although the current data don’t definitively answer the question of whether HCQ is effective in treating COVID-19, taking a “let’s try it and see” approach is not reasonable.
“Until we have good, prospective randomized trials, it’s hard to know what to make of this. But this is more evidence that there’s not a good reason to use [HCQ],” Dr. Wessner said. He points out that the small randomized trial from China shows that HCQ comes with potential harms.
Anecdotal evidence is often cited by those who promote HCQ as a potential treatment, but “those are one-off examples,” Wessner continued. “That doesn’t really tell us anything.”
Some HCQ proponents have said that trials finding no benefit are flawed in that the drug is given too late. However, Dr. Wessner says, there’s no way to prove or disprove that claim without randomized controlled trials.
Conflicting messages
Despite lack of clear evidence of benefit for patients with COVID-19, HCQ is recommended off-label by the Chinese National guideline, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19.
Conversely, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a guideline panel convened by the National Institutes of Health each concluded recently that because of insufficient data, they could not recommend any specific treatments for patients with COVID-19.
The VA data for the current study came from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, which includes inpatient, outpatient and laboratory data and pharmacy claims.
The authors acknowledge some limitations, “including those inherent to all retrospective analyses such as nonrandomization of treatments.”
However, they note that they did adjust for potential confounders, including comorbidities, medications, and clinical and laboratory factors.
A coauthor, Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, is a cofounder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. Dr. Ambati is named as an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to COVID-19 but unrelated to this work. Another coauthor has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors and Dr. Wessner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) is not associated with a lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, according to a retrospective study of Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
The study, which was posted on a preprint server April 21 and has not been peer reviewed, also showed an increased risk of death associated with COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ alone.
“These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs,” write Joseph Magagnoli with Dorn Research Institute at the Columbia (S.C.) VA Health Care System and the department of clinical pharmacy & outcomes sciences, University of South Carolina, and colleagues.
A spokesperson with the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where several of coauthors practice, said that the authors declined to comment for this article before peer review is completed.
The new data are not the first to suggest no benefit with HCQ among patients with COVID-19. A randomized trial showed no benefit and more side effects among 75 patients in China treated with HCQ, compared with 75 who received standard of care alone, according to a preprint posted online April 14.
No benefit in ventilation, death rates
The current analysis included data from all 368 male patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and treated at Veterans Health Administration medical centers in the United States through April 11.
Patients were categorized into three groups: those treated with HCQ in addition to standard of care (n = 97); those treated with HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin plus standard of care (n = 113); and those who received standard supportive care only (n = 158).
Compared with the no HCQ group, the risk of death from any cause was higher in the HCQ group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-6.17; P = .03) but not in the HCQ+AZ group (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.56-2.32; P = .72).
The risk of ventilation was similar in the HCQ group (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.53-3.79; P = .48) and in the HCQ+AZ group (aHR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.16-1.12; P = .09), compared with the no-HCQ group.
This study provides another counterbalance to claims of HCQ efficacy, David R. Wessner, PhD, professor of biology and chair of the department of health and human values at Davidson (N.C.) College, said in an interview.
Interest in HCQ spiked after an open-label, nonrandomized, single-center study of COVID-19 patients in France suggested that hydroxychloroquine helped clear the virus and had a potential enhanced effect when combined with azithromycin.
But the 36-patient trial has since been called into question.
Wait for convincing data
Dr. Wessner, whose research focuses on viral pathogenesis, says that, although the current data don’t definitively answer the question of whether HCQ is effective in treating COVID-19, taking a “let’s try it and see” approach is not reasonable.
“Until we have good, prospective randomized trials, it’s hard to know what to make of this. But this is more evidence that there’s not a good reason to use [HCQ],” Dr. Wessner said. He points out that the small randomized trial from China shows that HCQ comes with potential harms.
Anecdotal evidence is often cited by those who promote HCQ as a potential treatment, but “those are one-off examples,” Wessner continued. “That doesn’t really tell us anything.”
Some HCQ proponents have said that trials finding no benefit are flawed in that the drug is given too late. However, Dr. Wessner says, there’s no way to prove or disprove that claim without randomized controlled trials.
Conflicting messages
Despite lack of clear evidence of benefit for patients with COVID-19, HCQ is recommended off-label by the Chinese National guideline, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19.
Conversely, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a guideline panel convened by the National Institutes of Health each concluded recently that because of insufficient data, they could not recommend any specific treatments for patients with COVID-19.
The VA data for the current study came from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, which includes inpatient, outpatient and laboratory data and pharmacy claims.
The authors acknowledge some limitations, “including those inherent to all retrospective analyses such as nonrandomization of treatments.”
However, they note that they did adjust for potential confounders, including comorbidities, medications, and clinical and laboratory factors.
A coauthor, Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, is a cofounder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. Dr. Ambati is named as an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to COVID-19 but unrelated to this work. Another coauthor has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors and Dr. Wessner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Interim guidance for CPR in patients with COVID-19
The American Heart Association (AHA) and seven other medical societies have issued interim guidance to inform treatment of victims of cardiac arrest with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, focusing on reducing provider exposure, and prioritizing oxygenation and ventilation strategies, goals of care, and appropriateness of resuscitation.
“We were very specific in calling this ‘interim guidance’ based on expert opinion because things are evolving so quickly and we are learning more and more every day as more and more patients with COVID-19 are taken care of,” corresponding author Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, vice president, Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Science and Innovation, American Heart Association, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“We wanted this to be a starting point for providing the clinical guidance that everyone is looking for and, as we collect more data, the guidance will change, as it has for CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and WHO [World Health Organization],” she said.
“The guidance sought to balance the provision of timely, high-quality resuscitation to patients while simultaneously protecting rescuers,” she added.
The guidance was published online April 9 in Circulation. The AHA produced the guidelines in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Respiratory Care, American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, with support from the American Association of Critical Care Nurses and National EMS Physicians.
Respiratory Etiologies
“We think of cardiac arrest in adults, especially as related to cardiac etiologies, but we are now thinking of it in COVID-19 more as hypoxemia or respiratory failure, which can predispose patients to cardiac arrest,” Sasson explained.
Healthcare workers are the “highest-risk profession” for contracting the COVID-19, with resuscitations carrying “added risk” for several reasons, the authors note.
Administering CPR involves performing numerous aerosol-generating procedures that can cause viral particles to remain suspended in the air and be inhaled by those nearby, with a half-life of approximately 1 hour, they point out.
Moreover, resuscitation efforts “require numerous providers to work in close proximity to one another and the patient,” and the high-stress emergent nature of these events may result in lapses in infection-control procedures.
The guidance is designed “to protect not only the patient but also the provider and involves strategies regarding oxygenation and ventilation that differ from what we’ve done in the past since we have a strong feeling that this is a different disease process that may require different approaches than what we’ve dealt with in the past,” Sasson commented.
Reducing Provider Exposure
Providers should don PPE to protect both themselves and their colleagues from unnecessary exposure, the authors advise, noting that recommendations for PPE standards may “vary considerably,” so health or emergency medical services (EMS) standards should be taken into account.
Moreover, it is important to allow only the most essential providers into the room or on the scene. In keeping with reducing the number of rescuers, the authors recommend replacing manual chest compressions with mechanical CPR devices for patients who meet height and weight criteria in settings with “protocols and expertise in place for their use.”
COVID-19 status should be communicated to any new providers prior to their arrival on the scene, the authors stress.
Oxygenation and Ventilation Strategies
“Reducing risk of aerosolization during the process of intubation is key,” Sasson emphasized.
For this reason, a high-efficiency particulate air HEPA filter (if available) should be attached to any manual or mechanical ventilation device, specifically in the path of exhaled gas, before any breaths are administered.
Moreover, it is important to intubate early with a cuffed tube and connect to a mechanical ventilator, if possible. The intubator should be engaged with the “highest chance of first-pass success,” and chest compression should be paused to intubate.
To further increase the chance of a successful first intubation, use of video laryngoscopy (if available) is helpful.
Additional guidance includes:
- Using a bag-mask device (or T-piece in neonates) with a HEPA filter and a tight seal prior to intubation
- Considering passive oxygenation with non-rebreathing face mask as an alternative to bag-mask device for short duration (in adults)
- Considering supraglottic airway if intubation is delayed
- Minimizing closed circuit disconnections.
Resuscitation Considerations
“One big take-home point of the guidance is to consider resuscitation appropriateness, starting with goals of care when the patient comes to us, and continuing or stopping resuscitation when needed, based on the discussion with the family as well as local protocol,” Sasson said.
A variety of factors need to be taken into account, including age, comorbidities, and illness severity to determine the appropriateness of resuscitation, and “the likelihood of success” must be balanced “against the risk to rescuers and patients from whom resources are being diverted,” the authors state.
An Array of Scenarios
“We divided bystander CPR into adults vs pediatrics and into those who are living with a person who is in cardiac arrest – because they have already been exposed [to COVID-19] – vs those who are not living with the patient,” Sasson reported. “We also addressed the role of lay bystanders.”
For lay rescuers:
- Household members should perform at least hands-only CPR, if willing and able to do so
- Use of a face mark or cloth covering of the mouth and nose of the rescuer and/or patient may reduce the risk of transmission to a nonhousehold member
- In children, lay rescuers should perform chest compressions and “consider mouth-to-mouth resuscitation,” especially if they are household members.
- If available, an automated external defibrillator should be used to assess and treat victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
The authors offer additional guidance for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), including addressing advanced care directives, closing the door when possible to prevent airborne contamination of adjacent space, and considering leaving the patient on a mechanical ventilator with HEPA filter.
They additionally address the special needs of neonates, recommending the presence of a “skilled attendant prepared to resuscitate, irrespective of COVID-19 status,” and stressing the importance of PPE since the mother may be a “potential source of aerosolization for the neonatal team.” Additional measures include avoidance of routine airway suctioning and the use of endotracheal medications.
Critically ill pregnant women with COVID-19 are more vulnerable to acute decompensation because of the cardiopulmonary physiological changes associated with pregnancy, the authors note. Preparation for a potential perimortem delivery should take place after 4 minutes of resuscitation and be initiated early in the resuscitation algorithm so as to allow specialized obstetrical and neonatal teams with PPE to convene.
“We will be continually updating this guidance and we are encouraging people to ask questions,” Sasson summarized.
She noted that a hospital-based COVID-19 registry is being formed to collect “clinically relevant data” that will inform and update the current guidance.
Sasson reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Heart Association (AHA) and seven other medical societies have issued interim guidance to inform treatment of victims of cardiac arrest with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, focusing on reducing provider exposure, and prioritizing oxygenation and ventilation strategies, goals of care, and appropriateness of resuscitation.
“We were very specific in calling this ‘interim guidance’ based on expert opinion because things are evolving so quickly and we are learning more and more every day as more and more patients with COVID-19 are taken care of,” corresponding author Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, vice president, Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Science and Innovation, American Heart Association, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“We wanted this to be a starting point for providing the clinical guidance that everyone is looking for and, as we collect more data, the guidance will change, as it has for CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and WHO [World Health Organization],” she said.
“The guidance sought to balance the provision of timely, high-quality resuscitation to patients while simultaneously protecting rescuers,” she added.
The guidance was published online April 9 in Circulation. The AHA produced the guidelines in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Respiratory Care, American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, with support from the American Association of Critical Care Nurses and National EMS Physicians.
Respiratory Etiologies
“We think of cardiac arrest in adults, especially as related to cardiac etiologies, but we are now thinking of it in COVID-19 more as hypoxemia or respiratory failure, which can predispose patients to cardiac arrest,” Sasson explained.
Healthcare workers are the “highest-risk profession” for contracting the COVID-19, with resuscitations carrying “added risk” for several reasons, the authors note.
Administering CPR involves performing numerous aerosol-generating procedures that can cause viral particles to remain suspended in the air and be inhaled by those nearby, with a half-life of approximately 1 hour, they point out.
Moreover, resuscitation efforts “require numerous providers to work in close proximity to one another and the patient,” and the high-stress emergent nature of these events may result in lapses in infection-control procedures.
The guidance is designed “to protect not only the patient but also the provider and involves strategies regarding oxygenation and ventilation that differ from what we’ve done in the past since we have a strong feeling that this is a different disease process that may require different approaches than what we’ve dealt with in the past,” Sasson commented.
Reducing Provider Exposure
Providers should don PPE to protect both themselves and their colleagues from unnecessary exposure, the authors advise, noting that recommendations for PPE standards may “vary considerably,” so health or emergency medical services (EMS) standards should be taken into account.
Moreover, it is important to allow only the most essential providers into the room or on the scene. In keeping with reducing the number of rescuers, the authors recommend replacing manual chest compressions with mechanical CPR devices for patients who meet height and weight criteria in settings with “protocols and expertise in place for their use.”
COVID-19 status should be communicated to any new providers prior to their arrival on the scene, the authors stress.
Oxygenation and Ventilation Strategies
“Reducing risk of aerosolization during the process of intubation is key,” Sasson emphasized.
For this reason, a high-efficiency particulate air HEPA filter (if available) should be attached to any manual or mechanical ventilation device, specifically in the path of exhaled gas, before any breaths are administered.
Moreover, it is important to intubate early with a cuffed tube and connect to a mechanical ventilator, if possible. The intubator should be engaged with the “highest chance of first-pass success,” and chest compression should be paused to intubate.
To further increase the chance of a successful first intubation, use of video laryngoscopy (if available) is helpful.
Additional guidance includes:
- Using a bag-mask device (or T-piece in neonates) with a HEPA filter and a tight seal prior to intubation
- Considering passive oxygenation with non-rebreathing face mask as an alternative to bag-mask device for short duration (in adults)
- Considering supraglottic airway if intubation is delayed
- Minimizing closed circuit disconnections.
Resuscitation Considerations
“One big take-home point of the guidance is to consider resuscitation appropriateness, starting with goals of care when the patient comes to us, and continuing or stopping resuscitation when needed, based on the discussion with the family as well as local protocol,” Sasson said.
A variety of factors need to be taken into account, including age, comorbidities, and illness severity to determine the appropriateness of resuscitation, and “the likelihood of success” must be balanced “against the risk to rescuers and patients from whom resources are being diverted,” the authors state.
An Array of Scenarios
“We divided bystander CPR into adults vs pediatrics and into those who are living with a person who is in cardiac arrest – because they have already been exposed [to COVID-19] – vs those who are not living with the patient,” Sasson reported. “We also addressed the role of lay bystanders.”
For lay rescuers:
- Household members should perform at least hands-only CPR, if willing and able to do so
- Use of a face mark or cloth covering of the mouth and nose of the rescuer and/or patient may reduce the risk of transmission to a nonhousehold member
- In children, lay rescuers should perform chest compressions and “consider mouth-to-mouth resuscitation,” especially if they are household members.
- If available, an automated external defibrillator should be used to assess and treat victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
The authors offer additional guidance for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), including addressing advanced care directives, closing the door when possible to prevent airborne contamination of adjacent space, and considering leaving the patient on a mechanical ventilator with HEPA filter.
They additionally address the special needs of neonates, recommending the presence of a “skilled attendant prepared to resuscitate, irrespective of COVID-19 status,” and stressing the importance of PPE since the mother may be a “potential source of aerosolization for the neonatal team.” Additional measures include avoidance of routine airway suctioning and the use of endotracheal medications.
Critically ill pregnant women with COVID-19 are more vulnerable to acute decompensation because of the cardiopulmonary physiological changes associated with pregnancy, the authors note. Preparation for a potential perimortem delivery should take place after 4 minutes of resuscitation and be initiated early in the resuscitation algorithm so as to allow specialized obstetrical and neonatal teams with PPE to convene.
“We will be continually updating this guidance and we are encouraging people to ask questions,” Sasson summarized.
She noted that a hospital-based COVID-19 registry is being formed to collect “clinically relevant data” that will inform and update the current guidance.
Sasson reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Heart Association (AHA) and seven other medical societies have issued interim guidance to inform treatment of victims of cardiac arrest with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, focusing on reducing provider exposure, and prioritizing oxygenation and ventilation strategies, goals of care, and appropriateness of resuscitation.
“We were very specific in calling this ‘interim guidance’ based on expert opinion because things are evolving so quickly and we are learning more and more every day as more and more patients with COVID-19 are taken care of,” corresponding author Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, vice president, Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Science and Innovation, American Heart Association, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“We wanted this to be a starting point for providing the clinical guidance that everyone is looking for and, as we collect more data, the guidance will change, as it has for CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and WHO [World Health Organization],” she said.
“The guidance sought to balance the provision of timely, high-quality resuscitation to patients while simultaneously protecting rescuers,” she added.
The guidance was published online April 9 in Circulation. The AHA produced the guidelines in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Respiratory Care, American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, with support from the American Association of Critical Care Nurses and National EMS Physicians.
Respiratory Etiologies
“We think of cardiac arrest in adults, especially as related to cardiac etiologies, but we are now thinking of it in COVID-19 more as hypoxemia or respiratory failure, which can predispose patients to cardiac arrest,” Sasson explained.
Healthcare workers are the “highest-risk profession” for contracting the COVID-19, with resuscitations carrying “added risk” for several reasons, the authors note.
Administering CPR involves performing numerous aerosol-generating procedures that can cause viral particles to remain suspended in the air and be inhaled by those nearby, with a half-life of approximately 1 hour, they point out.
Moreover, resuscitation efforts “require numerous providers to work in close proximity to one another and the patient,” and the high-stress emergent nature of these events may result in lapses in infection-control procedures.
The guidance is designed “to protect not only the patient but also the provider and involves strategies regarding oxygenation and ventilation that differ from what we’ve done in the past since we have a strong feeling that this is a different disease process that may require different approaches than what we’ve dealt with in the past,” Sasson commented.
Reducing Provider Exposure
Providers should don PPE to protect both themselves and their colleagues from unnecessary exposure, the authors advise, noting that recommendations for PPE standards may “vary considerably,” so health or emergency medical services (EMS) standards should be taken into account.
Moreover, it is important to allow only the most essential providers into the room or on the scene. In keeping with reducing the number of rescuers, the authors recommend replacing manual chest compressions with mechanical CPR devices for patients who meet height and weight criteria in settings with “protocols and expertise in place for their use.”
COVID-19 status should be communicated to any new providers prior to their arrival on the scene, the authors stress.
Oxygenation and Ventilation Strategies
“Reducing risk of aerosolization during the process of intubation is key,” Sasson emphasized.
For this reason, a high-efficiency particulate air HEPA filter (if available) should be attached to any manual or mechanical ventilation device, specifically in the path of exhaled gas, before any breaths are administered.
Moreover, it is important to intubate early with a cuffed tube and connect to a mechanical ventilator, if possible. The intubator should be engaged with the “highest chance of first-pass success,” and chest compression should be paused to intubate.
To further increase the chance of a successful first intubation, use of video laryngoscopy (if available) is helpful.
Additional guidance includes:
- Using a bag-mask device (or T-piece in neonates) with a HEPA filter and a tight seal prior to intubation
- Considering passive oxygenation with non-rebreathing face mask as an alternative to bag-mask device for short duration (in adults)
- Considering supraglottic airway if intubation is delayed
- Minimizing closed circuit disconnections.
Resuscitation Considerations
“One big take-home point of the guidance is to consider resuscitation appropriateness, starting with goals of care when the patient comes to us, and continuing or stopping resuscitation when needed, based on the discussion with the family as well as local protocol,” Sasson said.
A variety of factors need to be taken into account, including age, comorbidities, and illness severity to determine the appropriateness of resuscitation, and “the likelihood of success” must be balanced “against the risk to rescuers and patients from whom resources are being diverted,” the authors state.
An Array of Scenarios
“We divided bystander CPR into adults vs pediatrics and into those who are living with a person who is in cardiac arrest – because they have already been exposed [to COVID-19] – vs those who are not living with the patient,” Sasson reported. “We also addressed the role of lay bystanders.”
For lay rescuers:
- Household members should perform at least hands-only CPR, if willing and able to do so
- Use of a face mark or cloth covering of the mouth and nose of the rescuer and/or patient may reduce the risk of transmission to a nonhousehold member
- In children, lay rescuers should perform chest compressions and “consider mouth-to-mouth resuscitation,” especially if they are household members.
- If available, an automated external defibrillator should be used to assess and treat victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
The authors offer additional guidance for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), including addressing advanced care directives, closing the door when possible to prevent airborne contamination of adjacent space, and considering leaving the patient on a mechanical ventilator with HEPA filter.
They additionally address the special needs of neonates, recommending the presence of a “skilled attendant prepared to resuscitate, irrespective of COVID-19 status,” and stressing the importance of PPE since the mother may be a “potential source of aerosolization for the neonatal team.” Additional measures include avoidance of routine airway suctioning and the use of endotracheal medications.
Critically ill pregnant women with COVID-19 are more vulnerable to acute decompensation because of the cardiopulmonary physiological changes associated with pregnancy, the authors note. Preparation for a potential perimortem delivery should take place after 4 minutes of resuscitation and be initiated early in the resuscitation algorithm so as to allow specialized obstetrical and neonatal teams with PPE to convene.
“We will be continually updating this guidance and we are encouraging people to ask questions,” Sasson summarized.
She noted that a hospital-based COVID-19 registry is being formed to collect “clinically relevant data” that will inform and update the current guidance.
Sasson reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sodium nitrite disappoints in cardiac arrest
Among patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intravenous sodium nitrite given by paramedics during resuscitation did not significantly improve their chances of being admitted to or discharged from the hospital alive.
The study was presented at the recent “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).
Lead investigator Francis Kim, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, explained that sodium nitrate is an antioxidant; animal studies have suggested that under conditions of hypoxia, it is converted into the vasodilator nitric oxide, which can increase blood flow to the brain and heart tissues.
In animal models of cardiac arrest, the use of sodium nitrite during resuscitation increased survival by almost 50%.
For the current study, 1,502 patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either a low dose (45 mg) or a high dose (60 mg) of sodium nitrite or a placebo. The average age of the patients who were included in the study was 64 years, and 66% were male; 22% had ventricular fibrillation, 43% had asystole, and 29% had pulseless electrical activity.
Results showed no statistically significant differences between the groups who received placebo, low-dose sodium nitrite, or high-dose sodium nitrite on survival to hospital admission (the primary endpoint) or on hospital discharge (the secondary endpoint). There was also no difference in either endpoint in the subgroup with ventricular fibrillation.
“Our results are disappointing, especially after the promising findings in animal studies, but we feel this trial shuts the door on using this drug in this indication,” Kim said.
Discussing the study at an ACC press conference, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, University of Kansas Hospital and Medical Center and ACC Electrophysiology Council chair, said this was “an excellent trial in the unending quest to try to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
“As we all aware, if we don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 seconds, we pass out, and if don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 minutes, brain death occurs. When people suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the rate of survival is therefore dramatically lower when the ability to resuscitate goes beyond 5 minutes,” Lakkireddy noted.
He questioned why the current trial showed no effect when there had been significant early promise in animal studies. He suggested factors that could have been relevant included the time to intervention ― which was an average of 22 minutes from call to randomization ― perfusion of the brain, whether the drug cleared the blood-brain barrier, whether nitric oxide levels in the brain were sufficient, and the patient population that was included in the study.
“A large percentage of patients had asystole or pulseless electrical activity ― these are known to have worse outcomes ― and 60% of patients in the study did not have a witnessed arrest and could have been down for much longer and therefore could have had a significantly higher level of irreversible brain damage,” Lakkireddy pointed out.
“If we can understand some of the issues, we may be able to do another trial in a different subset of patients in whom the duration of arrest is significantly lower,” he commented.
The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Kim has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intravenous sodium nitrite given by paramedics during resuscitation did not significantly improve their chances of being admitted to or discharged from the hospital alive.
The study was presented at the recent “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).
Lead investigator Francis Kim, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, explained that sodium nitrate is an antioxidant; animal studies have suggested that under conditions of hypoxia, it is converted into the vasodilator nitric oxide, which can increase blood flow to the brain and heart tissues.
In animal models of cardiac arrest, the use of sodium nitrite during resuscitation increased survival by almost 50%.
For the current study, 1,502 patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either a low dose (45 mg) or a high dose (60 mg) of sodium nitrite or a placebo. The average age of the patients who were included in the study was 64 years, and 66% were male; 22% had ventricular fibrillation, 43% had asystole, and 29% had pulseless electrical activity.
Results showed no statistically significant differences between the groups who received placebo, low-dose sodium nitrite, or high-dose sodium nitrite on survival to hospital admission (the primary endpoint) or on hospital discharge (the secondary endpoint). There was also no difference in either endpoint in the subgroup with ventricular fibrillation.
“Our results are disappointing, especially after the promising findings in animal studies, but we feel this trial shuts the door on using this drug in this indication,” Kim said.
Discussing the study at an ACC press conference, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, University of Kansas Hospital and Medical Center and ACC Electrophysiology Council chair, said this was “an excellent trial in the unending quest to try to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
“As we all aware, if we don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 seconds, we pass out, and if don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 minutes, brain death occurs. When people suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the rate of survival is therefore dramatically lower when the ability to resuscitate goes beyond 5 minutes,” Lakkireddy noted.
He questioned why the current trial showed no effect when there had been significant early promise in animal studies. He suggested factors that could have been relevant included the time to intervention ― which was an average of 22 minutes from call to randomization ― perfusion of the brain, whether the drug cleared the blood-brain barrier, whether nitric oxide levels in the brain were sufficient, and the patient population that was included in the study.
“A large percentage of patients had asystole or pulseless electrical activity ― these are known to have worse outcomes ― and 60% of patients in the study did not have a witnessed arrest and could have been down for much longer and therefore could have had a significantly higher level of irreversible brain damage,” Lakkireddy pointed out.
“If we can understand some of the issues, we may be able to do another trial in a different subset of patients in whom the duration of arrest is significantly lower,” he commented.
The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Kim has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intravenous sodium nitrite given by paramedics during resuscitation did not significantly improve their chances of being admitted to or discharged from the hospital alive.
The study was presented at the recent “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).
Lead investigator Francis Kim, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, explained that sodium nitrate is an antioxidant; animal studies have suggested that under conditions of hypoxia, it is converted into the vasodilator nitric oxide, which can increase blood flow to the brain and heart tissues.
In animal models of cardiac arrest, the use of sodium nitrite during resuscitation increased survival by almost 50%.
For the current study, 1,502 patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either a low dose (45 mg) or a high dose (60 mg) of sodium nitrite or a placebo. The average age of the patients who were included in the study was 64 years, and 66% were male; 22% had ventricular fibrillation, 43% had asystole, and 29% had pulseless electrical activity.
Results showed no statistically significant differences between the groups who received placebo, low-dose sodium nitrite, or high-dose sodium nitrite on survival to hospital admission (the primary endpoint) or on hospital discharge (the secondary endpoint). There was also no difference in either endpoint in the subgroup with ventricular fibrillation.
“Our results are disappointing, especially after the promising findings in animal studies, but we feel this trial shuts the door on using this drug in this indication,” Kim said.
Discussing the study at an ACC press conference, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, University of Kansas Hospital and Medical Center and ACC Electrophysiology Council chair, said this was “an excellent trial in the unending quest to try to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
“As we all aware, if we don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 seconds, we pass out, and if don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 minutes, brain death occurs. When people suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the rate of survival is therefore dramatically lower when the ability to resuscitate goes beyond 5 minutes,” Lakkireddy noted.
He questioned why the current trial showed no effect when there had been significant early promise in animal studies. He suggested factors that could have been relevant included the time to intervention ― which was an average of 22 minutes from call to randomization ― perfusion of the brain, whether the drug cleared the blood-brain barrier, whether nitric oxide levels in the brain were sufficient, and the patient population that was included in the study.
“A large percentage of patients had asystole or pulseless electrical activity ― these are known to have worse outcomes ― and 60% of patients in the study did not have a witnessed arrest and could have been down for much longer and therefore could have had a significantly higher level of irreversible brain damage,” Lakkireddy pointed out.
“If we can understand some of the issues, we may be able to do another trial in a different subset of patients in whom the duration of arrest is significantly lower,” he commented.
The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Kim has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiology groups push back on hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin for COVID-19
The .
“Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been touted for potential prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19; both drugs are listed as definite causes of torsade de pointes” and increase in the risk of other arrhythmias and sudden death, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society said in a joint statement April 8 in Circulation.
The statement came amid ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite lack of strong data.
In addition to underlying cardiovascular disease, “seriously ill patients often have comorbidities that can increase risk of serious arrhythmias,” including hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, fever, and systemic inflammation, the groups said.
They recommended withholding the drugs in patients with baseline QT prolongation (e.g., QTc of at least 500 msec) or with known congenital long QT syndrome; monitoring cardiac rhythm and QT interval and withdrawing hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin if QTc exceeds 500 msec; correcting hypokalemia to levels greater than 4 mEq/L and hypomagnesemia to more than 2 mg/dL; and avoiding other QTc-prolonging agents when possible.
The groups noted that, “in patients critically ill with COVID-19 infection, frequent caregiver contact may need to be minimized, so optimal electrocardiographic interval and rhythm monitoring may not be possible.” There is also a possible compounding arrhythmic effect when hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are used together, but that has not been studied.
There’s a known risk of torsade de pointes with chloroquine and a possible risk with the antiviral HIV combination drug lopinavir-ritonavir, two other candidates for COVID-19 treatment. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, both antimalarials, might help prevent or treat infection by interfering with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, which the COVID-19 virus uses for cell entry, the groups said.
“The urgency of COVID-19 must not diminish the scientific rigor with which we approach COVID-19 treatment. While these medications may work against COVID-19 individually or in combination, we recommend caution with these medications for patients with existing cardiovascular disease,” Robert A. Harrington, MD, AHA president and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, emphasized in a press release.
SOURCE: Roden DM et al. Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521.
The .
“Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been touted for potential prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19; both drugs are listed as definite causes of torsade de pointes” and increase in the risk of other arrhythmias and sudden death, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society said in a joint statement April 8 in Circulation.
The statement came amid ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite lack of strong data.
In addition to underlying cardiovascular disease, “seriously ill patients often have comorbidities that can increase risk of serious arrhythmias,” including hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, fever, and systemic inflammation, the groups said.
They recommended withholding the drugs in patients with baseline QT prolongation (e.g., QTc of at least 500 msec) or with known congenital long QT syndrome; monitoring cardiac rhythm and QT interval and withdrawing hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin if QTc exceeds 500 msec; correcting hypokalemia to levels greater than 4 mEq/L and hypomagnesemia to more than 2 mg/dL; and avoiding other QTc-prolonging agents when possible.
The groups noted that, “in patients critically ill with COVID-19 infection, frequent caregiver contact may need to be minimized, so optimal electrocardiographic interval and rhythm monitoring may not be possible.” There is also a possible compounding arrhythmic effect when hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are used together, but that has not been studied.
There’s a known risk of torsade de pointes with chloroquine and a possible risk with the antiviral HIV combination drug lopinavir-ritonavir, two other candidates for COVID-19 treatment. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, both antimalarials, might help prevent or treat infection by interfering with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, which the COVID-19 virus uses for cell entry, the groups said.
“The urgency of COVID-19 must not diminish the scientific rigor with which we approach COVID-19 treatment. While these medications may work against COVID-19 individually or in combination, we recommend caution with these medications for patients with existing cardiovascular disease,” Robert A. Harrington, MD, AHA president and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, emphasized in a press release.
SOURCE: Roden DM et al. Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521.
The .
“Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been touted for potential prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19; both drugs are listed as definite causes of torsade de pointes” and increase in the risk of other arrhythmias and sudden death, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society said in a joint statement April 8 in Circulation.
The statement came amid ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite lack of strong data.
In addition to underlying cardiovascular disease, “seriously ill patients often have comorbidities that can increase risk of serious arrhythmias,” including hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, fever, and systemic inflammation, the groups said.
They recommended withholding the drugs in patients with baseline QT prolongation (e.g., QTc of at least 500 msec) or with known congenital long QT syndrome; monitoring cardiac rhythm and QT interval and withdrawing hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin if QTc exceeds 500 msec; correcting hypokalemia to levels greater than 4 mEq/L and hypomagnesemia to more than 2 mg/dL; and avoiding other QTc-prolonging agents when possible.
The groups noted that, “in patients critically ill with COVID-19 infection, frequent caregiver contact may need to be minimized, so optimal electrocardiographic interval and rhythm monitoring may not be possible.” There is also a possible compounding arrhythmic effect when hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are used together, but that has not been studied.
There’s a known risk of torsade de pointes with chloroquine and a possible risk with the antiviral HIV combination drug lopinavir-ritonavir, two other candidates for COVID-19 treatment. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, both antimalarials, might help prevent or treat infection by interfering with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, which the COVID-19 virus uses for cell entry, the groups said.
“The urgency of COVID-19 must not diminish the scientific rigor with which we approach COVID-19 treatment. While these medications may work against COVID-19 individually or in combination, we recommend caution with these medications for patients with existing cardiovascular disease,” Robert A. Harrington, MD, AHA president and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, emphasized in a press release.
SOURCE: Roden DM et al. Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521.
National Watchman registry reports impressive procedural safety
Early results from the massive National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry indicate that the rollout of the Watchman device into routine clinical practice is going smoothly, with a higher implant success rate and a substantially lower in-hospital complication rate than that seen in the pivotal randomized clinical trials, James V. Freeman, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
These real-world results are particularly impressive because the 38,158 registry participants were on average significantly older and sicker than were patients in the clinical trials. They were at higher risk of both stroke and bleeding, yet they fared better in terms of procedural safety, observed Dr. Freeman, an electrophysiologist and director of the Yale University Atrial Fibrillation Center in New Haven, Conn.
“You always worry that once you get outside of the clinical trials setting and you roll out to a large number of centers, including some that are relatively low volume, that you’re going to start to see higher rates of complications. And overall, broadly speaking, the rates of adverse events were quite reassuring,” he said.
The registry, maintained by the ACC, serves as the postmarketing surveillance tool mandated by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The 38,158 participants make this registry the world’s largest patient experience with the Watchman device by many orders of magnitude. Dr. Freeman’s report included patients enrolled during 2016-2018 who were treated at 495 hospitals by 1,318 physician interventionalists. CMS reimbursement requires participation in the registry, which captures more than 95% of all Watchman procedures done in the United States. Although Dr. Freeman presented only the acute in-hospital outcomes, active follow-up for adverse events and medical therapy will be conducted at 45 days, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years.
Participants in the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) Registry averaged 76.1 years of age, which is 2-4 years older than patients in the pivotal PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials or the 1,025-patient EWOLUTION registry. The LAAO Registry participants had a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.6, compared with 3.4 in PROTECT-AF and 3.8 in PREVAIL. Their mean HAS BLED score was 3.0. Thirty percent had a prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, 12% had a prior intracranial hemorrhage, and 69% had a history of clinically relevant bleeding. Thirty percent had heart failure, 92% were hypertensive, and 30% had diabetes.
“The take home here is that these patients were at moderate to high risk of stroke and they also carried a high risk of bleeding and therefore had some relative contraindication to anticoagulation,” according to the cardiologist. “The patient population overall is really in accordance with the CMS guidance. We’re not seeing a lot of patients who are getting this device for a lifestyle indication. Most of these patients are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.”
Most hospitals offering the Watchman did 10-40 cases per year. The median annual physician volume was 12 cases. However, there was substantial variation in both hospital and physician volumes.
The device was deployed in 93% of procedures attempted; roughly half of cancellations were cause by LAAO thrombus detected on the day of the procedure. The acute procedural success rate when the device was deployed was 98.3%, compared with 90.9% in PROTECT-AF and 95.1% in PREVAIL. The rate of device margin residual leak of 5 mm or more among registry participants with an acutely successful procedure was 0.2%.
The rate of any major in-hospital complication in the LAAO Registry was 2.16%, the most common of which was pericardial effusion requiring intervention, which occurred in 1.39% of cases. The major bleeding rate was 1.25%. The stroke/transient ischemic attack rate was 0.17%. Systemic arterial embolism was a rare event, occurring in less than 0.01% of patients, as was acute MI, with an incidence of 0.04%. Device embolization occurred in 0.07% of patients.
By comparison, the 7-day rate of pericardial effusion requiring intervention was 4.0% in PROTECT-AF and 1.9% in PREVAIL, with procedure-related stroke rates of 1.1% and 0.7%, respectively, and device embolization rates of 0.4% and 0.7%. The major bleeding rate in PROTECT-AF was 3.5%, nearly triple that in the real-world registry.
Discussant Mark A. Estes, MD, characterized the acute outcomes in the LAAO Registry as “an improvement – a considerable improvement – over some of the early data in PREVAIL and PROTECT-AF.” He credited this to the “very robust validation procedure” the Watchman closure device has undergone, which included the clinical trials, regulatory requirements for training and patient selection, and mandatory reporting of outcomes in the registry.
He noted that a lot is happening now with the Watchman device. There are a couple of dozen prospective clinical trials, including one on the Watchman versus direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy and another on left atrial ablation plus left atrial appendage closure versus a DOAC. A new-generation Watchman device, the Watchman FLX, is approved in Europe and undergoing an ongoing FDA-mandated approval trial in the United States.
“It has a lot of technical advantages,” according to Dr. Estes, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.
Current guidelines give LAAO a class IIb rating, meaning it “could be considered” in patients with atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke who have a contraindication to long-term anticoagulation. Dr. Estes asked: Does the LAAO Registry data warrant a rating upgrade to a stronger recommendation?
Dr. Freeman replied that the new data should allay the guideline writers’ and government regulators’ concerns regarding acute procedural safety. But that’s only part of the picture. He and his coinvestigators are busy gathering data on intermediate-term outcomes, analyzing the impact of various strategies for periprocedural and long-term management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications with an eye toward identifying best practices, and investigating the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes, information, which could have an impact on the next iteration of the guidelines.
Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the study was published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13;75[13]1503-18).
In an accompanying editorial, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, commented that an important contribution of the LAAO Registry is its inclusion of an enormous number of patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation, a population excluded from the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL randomized trials.
The short-term results of the registry suggest a relaxation of the current strict requirement for surgical backup during Watchman procedures is in order, added Dr. Lakkireddy, professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and medical director of the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13;75[13]:1519-22).
Dr. Freeman reported serving as a consultant to Boston Scientific, which markets the Watchman, as well as to Medtronic, Janssen, and Biosense Webster.
SOURCE: Freeman JF. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-10.
Early results from the massive National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry indicate that the rollout of the Watchman device into routine clinical practice is going smoothly, with a higher implant success rate and a substantially lower in-hospital complication rate than that seen in the pivotal randomized clinical trials, James V. Freeman, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
These real-world results are particularly impressive because the 38,158 registry participants were on average significantly older and sicker than were patients in the clinical trials. They were at higher risk of both stroke and bleeding, yet they fared better in terms of procedural safety, observed Dr. Freeman, an electrophysiologist and director of the Yale University Atrial Fibrillation Center in New Haven, Conn.
“You always worry that once you get outside of the clinical trials setting and you roll out to a large number of centers, including some that are relatively low volume, that you’re going to start to see higher rates of complications. And overall, broadly speaking, the rates of adverse events were quite reassuring,” he said.
The registry, maintained by the ACC, serves as the postmarketing surveillance tool mandated by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The 38,158 participants make this registry the world’s largest patient experience with the Watchman device by many orders of magnitude. Dr. Freeman’s report included patients enrolled during 2016-2018 who were treated at 495 hospitals by 1,318 physician interventionalists. CMS reimbursement requires participation in the registry, which captures more than 95% of all Watchman procedures done in the United States. Although Dr. Freeman presented only the acute in-hospital outcomes, active follow-up for adverse events and medical therapy will be conducted at 45 days, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years.
Participants in the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) Registry averaged 76.1 years of age, which is 2-4 years older than patients in the pivotal PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials or the 1,025-patient EWOLUTION registry. The LAAO Registry participants had a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.6, compared with 3.4 in PROTECT-AF and 3.8 in PREVAIL. Their mean HAS BLED score was 3.0. Thirty percent had a prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, 12% had a prior intracranial hemorrhage, and 69% had a history of clinically relevant bleeding. Thirty percent had heart failure, 92% were hypertensive, and 30% had diabetes.
“The take home here is that these patients were at moderate to high risk of stroke and they also carried a high risk of bleeding and therefore had some relative contraindication to anticoagulation,” according to the cardiologist. “The patient population overall is really in accordance with the CMS guidance. We’re not seeing a lot of patients who are getting this device for a lifestyle indication. Most of these patients are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.”
Most hospitals offering the Watchman did 10-40 cases per year. The median annual physician volume was 12 cases. However, there was substantial variation in both hospital and physician volumes.
The device was deployed in 93% of procedures attempted; roughly half of cancellations were cause by LAAO thrombus detected on the day of the procedure. The acute procedural success rate when the device was deployed was 98.3%, compared with 90.9% in PROTECT-AF and 95.1% in PREVAIL. The rate of device margin residual leak of 5 mm or more among registry participants with an acutely successful procedure was 0.2%.
The rate of any major in-hospital complication in the LAAO Registry was 2.16%, the most common of which was pericardial effusion requiring intervention, which occurred in 1.39% of cases. The major bleeding rate was 1.25%. The stroke/transient ischemic attack rate was 0.17%. Systemic arterial embolism was a rare event, occurring in less than 0.01% of patients, as was acute MI, with an incidence of 0.04%. Device embolization occurred in 0.07% of patients.
By comparison, the 7-day rate of pericardial effusion requiring intervention was 4.0% in PROTECT-AF and 1.9% in PREVAIL, with procedure-related stroke rates of 1.1% and 0.7%, respectively, and device embolization rates of 0.4% and 0.7%. The major bleeding rate in PROTECT-AF was 3.5%, nearly triple that in the real-world registry.
Discussant Mark A. Estes, MD, characterized the acute outcomes in the LAAO Registry as “an improvement – a considerable improvement – over some of the early data in PREVAIL and PROTECT-AF.” He credited this to the “very robust validation procedure” the Watchman closure device has undergone, which included the clinical trials, regulatory requirements for training and patient selection, and mandatory reporting of outcomes in the registry.
He noted that a lot is happening now with the Watchman device. There are a couple of dozen prospective clinical trials, including one on the Watchman versus direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy and another on left atrial ablation plus left atrial appendage closure versus a DOAC. A new-generation Watchman device, the Watchman FLX, is approved in Europe and undergoing an ongoing FDA-mandated approval trial in the United States.
“It has a lot of technical advantages,” according to Dr. Estes, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.
Current guidelines give LAAO a class IIb rating, meaning it “could be considered” in patients with atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke who have a contraindication to long-term anticoagulation. Dr. Estes asked: Does the LAAO Registry data warrant a rating upgrade to a stronger recommendation?
Dr. Freeman replied that the new data should allay the guideline writers’ and government regulators’ concerns regarding acute procedural safety. But that’s only part of the picture. He and his coinvestigators are busy gathering data on intermediate-term outcomes, analyzing the impact of various strategies for periprocedural and long-term management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications with an eye toward identifying best practices, and investigating the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes, information, which could have an impact on the next iteration of the guidelines.
Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the study was published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13;75[13]1503-18).
In an accompanying editorial, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, commented that an important contribution of the LAAO Registry is its inclusion of an enormous number of patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation, a population excluded from the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL randomized trials.
The short-term results of the registry suggest a relaxation of the current strict requirement for surgical backup during Watchman procedures is in order, added Dr. Lakkireddy, professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and medical director of the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13;75[13]:1519-22).
Dr. Freeman reported serving as a consultant to Boston Scientific, which markets the Watchman, as well as to Medtronic, Janssen, and Biosense Webster.
SOURCE: Freeman JF. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-10.
Early results from the massive National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry indicate that the rollout of the Watchman device into routine clinical practice is going smoothly, with a higher implant success rate and a substantially lower in-hospital complication rate than that seen in the pivotal randomized clinical trials, James V. Freeman, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
These real-world results are particularly impressive because the 38,158 registry participants were on average significantly older and sicker than were patients in the clinical trials. They were at higher risk of both stroke and bleeding, yet they fared better in terms of procedural safety, observed Dr. Freeman, an electrophysiologist and director of the Yale University Atrial Fibrillation Center in New Haven, Conn.
“You always worry that once you get outside of the clinical trials setting and you roll out to a large number of centers, including some that are relatively low volume, that you’re going to start to see higher rates of complications. And overall, broadly speaking, the rates of adverse events were quite reassuring,” he said.
The registry, maintained by the ACC, serves as the postmarketing surveillance tool mandated by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The 38,158 participants make this registry the world’s largest patient experience with the Watchman device by many orders of magnitude. Dr. Freeman’s report included patients enrolled during 2016-2018 who were treated at 495 hospitals by 1,318 physician interventionalists. CMS reimbursement requires participation in the registry, which captures more than 95% of all Watchman procedures done in the United States. Although Dr. Freeman presented only the acute in-hospital outcomes, active follow-up for adverse events and medical therapy will be conducted at 45 days, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years.
Participants in the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) Registry averaged 76.1 years of age, which is 2-4 years older than patients in the pivotal PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials or the 1,025-patient EWOLUTION registry. The LAAO Registry participants had a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.6, compared with 3.4 in PROTECT-AF and 3.8 in PREVAIL. Their mean HAS BLED score was 3.0. Thirty percent had a prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, 12% had a prior intracranial hemorrhage, and 69% had a history of clinically relevant bleeding. Thirty percent had heart failure, 92% were hypertensive, and 30% had diabetes.
“The take home here is that these patients were at moderate to high risk of stroke and they also carried a high risk of bleeding and therefore had some relative contraindication to anticoagulation,” according to the cardiologist. “The patient population overall is really in accordance with the CMS guidance. We’re not seeing a lot of patients who are getting this device for a lifestyle indication. Most of these patients are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.”
Most hospitals offering the Watchman did 10-40 cases per year. The median annual physician volume was 12 cases. However, there was substantial variation in both hospital and physician volumes.
The device was deployed in 93% of procedures attempted; roughly half of cancellations were cause by LAAO thrombus detected on the day of the procedure. The acute procedural success rate when the device was deployed was 98.3%, compared with 90.9% in PROTECT-AF and 95.1% in PREVAIL. The rate of device margin residual leak of 5 mm or more among registry participants with an acutely successful procedure was 0.2%.
The rate of any major in-hospital complication in the LAAO Registry was 2.16%, the most common of which was pericardial effusion requiring intervention, which occurred in 1.39% of cases. The major bleeding rate was 1.25%. The stroke/transient ischemic attack rate was 0.17%. Systemic arterial embolism was a rare event, occurring in less than 0.01% of patients, as was acute MI, with an incidence of 0.04%. Device embolization occurred in 0.07% of patients.
By comparison, the 7-day rate of pericardial effusion requiring intervention was 4.0% in PROTECT-AF and 1.9% in PREVAIL, with procedure-related stroke rates of 1.1% and 0.7%, respectively, and device embolization rates of 0.4% and 0.7%. The major bleeding rate in PROTECT-AF was 3.5%, nearly triple that in the real-world registry.
Discussant Mark A. Estes, MD, characterized the acute outcomes in the LAAO Registry as “an improvement – a considerable improvement – over some of the early data in PREVAIL and PROTECT-AF.” He credited this to the “very robust validation procedure” the Watchman closure device has undergone, which included the clinical trials, regulatory requirements for training and patient selection, and mandatory reporting of outcomes in the registry.
He noted that a lot is happening now with the Watchman device. There are a couple of dozen prospective clinical trials, including one on the Watchman versus direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy and another on left atrial ablation plus left atrial appendage closure versus a DOAC. A new-generation Watchman device, the Watchman FLX, is approved in Europe and undergoing an ongoing FDA-mandated approval trial in the United States.
“It has a lot of technical advantages,” according to Dr. Estes, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.
Current guidelines give LAAO a class IIb rating, meaning it “could be considered” in patients with atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke who have a contraindication to long-term anticoagulation. Dr. Estes asked: Does the LAAO Registry data warrant a rating upgrade to a stronger recommendation?
Dr. Freeman replied that the new data should allay the guideline writers’ and government regulators’ concerns regarding acute procedural safety. But that’s only part of the picture. He and his coinvestigators are busy gathering data on intermediate-term outcomes, analyzing the impact of various strategies for periprocedural and long-term management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications with an eye toward identifying best practices, and investigating the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes, information, which could have an impact on the next iteration of the guidelines.
Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the study was published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13;75[13]1503-18).
In an accompanying editorial, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, commented that an important contribution of the LAAO Registry is its inclusion of an enormous number of patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation, a population excluded from the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL randomized trials.
The short-term results of the registry suggest a relaxation of the current strict requirement for surgical backup during Watchman procedures is in order, added Dr. Lakkireddy, professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and medical director of the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13;75[13]:1519-22).
Dr. Freeman reported serving as a consultant to Boston Scientific, which markets the Watchman, as well as to Medtronic, Janssen, and Biosense Webster.
SOURCE: Freeman JF. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-10.
FROM ACC 2020
Safe to skip post-TAVR clopidogrel in patients on OAC for atrial fib: POPULAR-TAVI
The guidelines allow for the addition of short-term clopidogrel to an oral anticoagulant (OAC) in patients with an established OAC indication, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But does the extra antithrombotic protection come with safety issues?
It apparently did in the POPULAR-TAVI trial, which saw an excess of major and minor bleeding in such patients already on an OAC when they underwent TAVR and who then took the antiplatelet agent for the next 3 months.
The patients who instead continued on their OAC as the only post-TAVR antithrombotic, compared with those on double therapy, showed a 37% lower 1-year risk of any bleeding, including major and disabling bleeding.
Importantly, they didn’t seem to pay a price in excess ischemic events, such as stroke or myocardial infarction (MI).
The trial argues against adding clopidogrel on top of OAC in TAVR patients with an OAC indication in order to reduce their risk of bleeding, Jurriën ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
Whether the ischemic event risk was comparable with and without clopidogrel is less clear. “As the study is not powered for the ischemic end points, the answer is less definite. But we did not see a hint of a higher ischemic event rate, especially stroke, in the OAC-alone group,” ten Berg said.
“So we are pretty confident in saying that OAC alone is the optimal treatment.”
The results of POPULAR-TAVI were presented by Vincent Nijenhuis, MD, also from St. Antonius Hospital, on March 29 during the virtual presentation of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session/World Congress of Cardiology. Nijenhuis is also first author on the trial’s simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The only reason to add an antiplatelet in TAVR patients who need to be on an OAC for another indication is to prevent ischemic events like MI, stroke, or death, agreed George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
But that protection apparently wasn’t needed; for patients on OAC only, “the overall risk–benefit ratio was favorable for them both ways. Although the study is small, I think the findings would be clinically meaningful,” said Dangas, who was not involved in POPULAR-TAVI but was lead author on the GALILEO trial publication.
GALILEO tested a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) against dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing TAVR but without a conventional OAC indication. The trial was halted because the DOAC group started to show an excess of bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality.
Most POPULAR-TAVI patients were on vitamin K antagonists, but about a quarter were taking DOACs. Clopidogrel was given on an open-label basis.
The trial suggests that, for TAVR patients with an indication for lifelong OAC, “it does appear to be safe to give only an anticoagulant, whether it’s warfarin or a DOAC, and not add clopidogrel,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“The bottom line appears to be that it’s no worse, and is probably better in terms of bleeding events,” said Bonow, who wasn’t involved in POPULAR-TAVI.
But there are difficulties in interpreting the trial that stem from its design and other issues, he said. For example, it can’t really be concluded that adding an antiplatelet agent to OAC in such patients who undergo TAVR, according to commonly practiced techniques, will increase the risk of bleeding compared with OAC alone.
To begin with, Bonow said, substituting aspirin for clopidogrel might have produced better double-therapy results. But the bigger issues, Bonow said, center on the discretion its operators had in whether to maintain or suspend the patients’ OAC during the TAVR procedure, as well as the unusual bleeding definitions used in the trial.
The first POPULAR-TAVI primary end point was any bleeding that met Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria; the second was nonprocedural bleeding that met the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition.
“Because the VARC-2 classification does not distinguish between procedure-related and nonprocedure-related bleeding events, procedure-related events were defined as BARC type 4 severe bleeding,” the trial’s journal report states. Therefore, “most bleeding at the puncture site was counted as nonprocedure-related.”
It may be Bonow’s biggest issue with the trial, he said. “They’re terming these events that occurred periprocedurally, in the first day or first hours of the procedure, as being ‘nonprocedural’ because they didn’t represent severe BARC bleeding, where you have a subarachnoid hemorrhage or require transfusions.”
An editorial accompanying the trial report also knocks this aspect of the trial design. Although the trial “confirmed” a higher incidence of any bleeding in the double-therapy group, “there are concerns regarding the classification of bleeding and the reliability of secondary outcome analysis,” writes Frederick Feit, MD, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.
“Bleeding occurring during TAVI or the index hospitalization was unadvisedly defined as non-procedure related, even if it occurred at the access site,” the editorial notes.
Ten Berg noted that procedural bleeding is frequent in TAVI, but the VARC-2 definition doesn’t accommodate them. So “we also used the BARC definition for procedural bleeding, BARC-4,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“However, BARC-4 describes bleeding during surgery, and it turned out that in POPULAR- TAVI only one patient had BARC-4 bleeding. So we do not at all agree with the editorial.”
Still, the trial’s reported event-rate curves show that “most of the step-up in bleeding, in either arm of the trial, occurred immediately,” Bonow observed. A more consistent, flat trend followed thereafter out to 3 months.
“So half of the bleeding in both arms of the trial occurred at the site of the arterial puncture. Though it wasn’t considered severe, it was indeed periprocedural,” Bonow said, interpreting the results.
The POPULAR-TAVI journal report says the procedures were performed according to local site protocols, and site physicians were allowed to decide whether to continue or suspend OAC. But “the trial protocol advised physicians to continue oral anticoagulation during admission for the TAVI procedure.”
Many of the patients, regardless of randomization group, “went through the procedure under full anticoagulation,” Dangas agreed. POPULAR-TAVI, it seems, “is the first anticoagulation study ever to start anticoagulation before the procedure.”
Bleeding event rates in the trial “are somewhat high because of this unusual procedural feature of the study,” Dangas said.
“It’s therefore not surprising that so much of the bleeding occurred in the first hours of the procedure itself,” observed Bonow.
The trial enrolled 313 patients in four European countries who were on OAC for an approved indication, predominantly AF, and underwent TAVR. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 45.4% were women. They were randomly assigned to receive or not receive clopidogrel in a loading dose, followed by 75 mg/d on top of their OAC for 3 months, and were followed out to a year.
All bleeding that met VARC-2 criteria, the first primary end point, occurred in 21.7% of the 157 patients on OAC alone and 34.6% of the 156 who received double therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43 - 0.90; P = .011).
The second primary end point, “nonprocedural” bleeding that met BARC-4 criteria, occurred in 21.7% and 34.0%, respectively, of patients (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44 - 0.92; P = .015).
There were also two secondary composite outcomes. The first consisted of nonprocedural bleeding, cardiovascular (CV) death, any stroke, and MI, and was seen in 31.2% of patients on OAC alone and 45.5% of those on OAC plus clopidogrel (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 - 0.92), an absolute difference that was within the prospectively defined noninferiority margins.
The other secondary end point — CV death, ischemic stroke, and MI — occurred in 13.4% of those receiving only OAC and 17.3% on added clopidogrel (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 - 1.31), which was nonsignificant for superiority.
“Could they have done better by holding the anticoagulation, whether warfarin or a DOAC, during that time? That’s what I think many centers might do if they’re performing a TAVR,” Bonow said.
“It seems to me that could have been done in this trial as well: they could have stopped the anticoagulation, done the procedure, and started the anticoagulation after, the way you would normally in a patient getting a TAVR.”
Such a practice might have reduced the risk of procedural bleeding as it is usually defined in TAVR in both groups, thereby potentially blunting any difference in bleeding rate between the two groups.
“That’s my take on it.” Still, he said, the trial’s message remains: OAC without clopidogrel is safe in POPULAR-TAVI-like patients.
Nijenhuis had no disclosures. Ten Berg disclosed no industry ties. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Bonow has previously reported no disclosures. Dangas has previously disclosed receiving grants and fees from Bayer, fees from Janssen; grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo; and other compensation from Medtronic. Feit discloses personal fees from Abbott Vascular and other relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Sapheon.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The guidelines allow for the addition of short-term clopidogrel to an oral anticoagulant (OAC) in patients with an established OAC indication, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But does the extra antithrombotic protection come with safety issues?
It apparently did in the POPULAR-TAVI trial, which saw an excess of major and minor bleeding in such patients already on an OAC when they underwent TAVR and who then took the antiplatelet agent for the next 3 months.
The patients who instead continued on their OAC as the only post-TAVR antithrombotic, compared with those on double therapy, showed a 37% lower 1-year risk of any bleeding, including major and disabling bleeding.
Importantly, they didn’t seem to pay a price in excess ischemic events, such as stroke or myocardial infarction (MI).
The trial argues against adding clopidogrel on top of OAC in TAVR patients with an OAC indication in order to reduce their risk of bleeding, Jurriën ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
Whether the ischemic event risk was comparable with and without clopidogrel is less clear. “As the study is not powered for the ischemic end points, the answer is less definite. But we did not see a hint of a higher ischemic event rate, especially stroke, in the OAC-alone group,” ten Berg said.
“So we are pretty confident in saying that OAC alone is the optimal treatment.”
The results of POPULAR-TAVI were presented by Vincent Nijenhuis, MD, also from St. Antonius Hospital, on March 29 during the virtual presentation of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session/World Congress of Cardiology. Nijenhuis is also first author on the trial’s simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The only reason to add an antiplatelet in TAVR patients who need to be on an OAC for another indication is to prevent ischemic events like MI, stroke, or death, agreed George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
But that protection apparently wasn’t needed; for patients on OAC only, “the overall risk–benefit ratio was favorable for them both ways. Although the study is small, I think the findings would be clinically meaningful,” said Dangas, who was not involved in POPULAR-TAVI but was lead author on the GALILEO trial publication.
GALILEO tested a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) against dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing TAVR but without a conventional OAC indication. The trial was halted because the DOAC group started to show an excess of bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality.
Most POPULAR-TAVI patients were on vitamin K antagonists, but about a quarter were taking DOACs. Clopidogrel was given on an open-label basis.
The trial suggests that, for TAVR patients with an indication for lifelong OAC, “it does appear to be safe to give only an anticoagulant, whether it’s warfarin or a DOAC, and not add clopidogrel,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“The bottom line appears to be that it’s no worse, and is probably better in terms of bleeding events,” said Bonow, who wasn’t involved in POPULAR-TAVI.
But there are difficulties in interpreting the trial that stem from its design and other issues, he said. For example, it can’t really be concluded that adding an antiplatelet agent to OAC in such patients who undergo TAVR, according to commonly practiced techniques, will increase the risk of bleeding compared with OAC alone.
To begin with, Bonow said, substituting aspirin for clopidogrel might have produced better double-therapy results. But the bigger issues, Bonow said, center on the discretion its operators had in whether to maintain or suspend the patients’ OAC during the TAVR procedure, as well as the unusual bleeding definitions used in the trial.
The first POPULAR-TAVI primary end point was any bleeding that met Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria; the second was nonprocedural bleeding that met the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition.
“Because the VARC-2 classification does not distinguish between procedure-related and nonprocedure-related bleeding events, procedure-related events were defined as BARC type 4 severe bleeding,” the trial’s journal report states. Therefore, “most bleeding at the puncture site was counted as nonprocedure-related.”
It may be Bonow’s biggest issue with the trial, he said. “They’re terming these events that occurred periprocedurally, in the first day or first hours of the procedure, as being ‘nonprocedural’ because they didn’t represent severe BARC bleeding, where you have a subarachnoid hemorrhage or require transfusions.”
An editorial accompanying the trial report also knocks this aspect of the trial design. Although the trial “confirmed” a higher incidence of any bleeding in the double-therapy group, “there are concerns regarding the classification of bleeding and the reliability of secondary outcome analysis,” writes Frederick Feit, MD, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.
“Bleeding occurring during TAVI or the index hospitalization was unadvisedly defined as non-procedure related, even if it occurred at the access site,” the editorial notes.
Ten Berg noted that procedural bleeding is frequent in TAVI, but the VARC-2 definition doesn’t accommodate them. So “we also used the BARC definition for procedural bleeding, BARC-4,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“However, BARC-4 describes bleeding during surgery, and it turned out that in POPULAR- TAVI only one patient had BARC-4 bleeding. So we do not at all agree with the editorial.”
Still, the trial’s reported event-rate curves show that “most of the step-up in bleeding, in either arm of the trial, occurred immediately,” Bonow observed. A more consistent, flat trend followed thereafter out to 3 months.
“So half of the bleeding in both arms of the trial occurred at the site of the arterial puncture. Though it wasn’t considered severe, it was indeed periprocedural,” Bonow said, interpreting the results.
The POPULAR-TAVI journal report says the procedures were performed according to local site protocols, and site physicians were allowed to decide whether to continue or suspend OAC. But “the trial protocol advised physicians to continue oral anticoagulation during admission for the TAVI procedure.”
Many of the patients, regardless of randomization group, “went through the procedure under full anticoagulation,” Dangas agreed. POPULAR-TAVI, it seems, “is the first anticoagulation study ever to start anticoagulation before the procedure.”
Bleeding event rates in the trial “are somewhat high because of this unusual procedural feature of the study,” Dangas said.
“It’s therefore not surprising that so much of the bleeding occurred in the first hours of the procedure itself,” observed Bonow.
The trial enrolled 313 patients in four European countries who were on OAC for an approved indication, predominantly AF, and underwent TAVR. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 45.4% were women. They were randomly assigned to receive or not receive clopidogrel in a loading dose, followed by 75 mg/d on top of their OAC for 3 months, and were followed out to a year.
All bleeding that met VARC-2 criteria, the first primary end point, occurred in 21.7% of the 157 patients on OAC alone and 34.6% of the 156 who received double therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43 - 0.90; P = .011).
The second primary end point, “nonprocedural” bleeding that met BARC-4 criteria, occurred in 21.7% and 34.0%, respectively, of patients (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44 - 0.92; P = .015).
There were also two secondary composite outcomes. The first consisted of nonprocedural bleeding, cardiovascular (CV) death, any stroke, and MI, and was seen in 31.2% of patients on OAC alone and 45.5% of those on OAC plus clopidogrel (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 - 0.92), an absolute difference that was within the prospectively defined noninferiority margins.
The other secondary end point — CV death, ischemic stroke, and MI — occurred in 13.4% of those receiving only OAC and 17.3% on added clopidogrel (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 - 1.31), which was nonsignificant for superiority.
“Could they have done better by holding the anticoagulation, whether warfarin or a DOAC, during that time? That’s what I think many centers might do if they’re performing a TAVR,” Bonow said.
“It seems to me that could have been done in this trial as well: they could have stopped the anticoagulation, done the procedure, and started the anticoagulation after, the way you would normally in a patient getting a TAVR.”
Such a practice might have reduced the risk of procedural bleeding as it is usually defined in TAVR in both groups, thereby potentially blunting any difference in bleeding rate between the two groups.
“That’s my take on it.” Still, he said, the trial’s message remains: OAC without clopidogrel is safe in POPULAR-TAVI-like patients.
Nijenhuis had no disclosures. Ten Berg disclosed no industry ties. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Bonow has previously reported no disclosures. Dangas has previously disclosed receiving grants and fees from Bayer, fees from Janssen; grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo; and other compensation from Medtronic. Feit discloses personal fees from Abbott Vascular and other relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Sapheon.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The guidelines allow for the addition of short-term clopidogrel to an oral anticoagulant (OAC) in patients with an established OAC indication, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But does the extra antithrombotic protection come with safety issues?
It apparently did in the POPULAR-TAVI trial, which saw an excess of major and minor bleeding in such patients already on an OAC when they underwent TAVR and who then took the antiplatelet agent for the next 3 months.
The patients who instead continued on their OAC as the only post-TAVR antithrombotic, compared with those on double therapy, showed a 37% lower 1-year risk of any bleeding, including major and disabling bleeding.
Importantly, they didn’t seem to pay a price in excess ischemic events, such as stroke or myocardial infarction (MI).
The trial argues against adding clopidogrel on top of OAC in TAVR patients with an OAC indication in order to reduce their risk of bleeding, Jurriën ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
Whether the ischemic event risk was comparable with and without clopidogrel is less clear. “As the study is not powered for the ischemic end points, the answer is less definite. But we did not see a hint of a higher ischemic event rate, especially stroke, in the OAC-alone group,” ten Berg said.
“So we are pretty confident in saying that OAC alone is the optimal treatment.”
The results of POPULAR-TAVI were presented by Vincent Nijenhuis, MD, also from St. Antonius Hospital, on March 29 during the virtual presentation of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session/World Congress of Cardiology. Nijenhuis is also first author on the trial’s simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The only reason to add an antiplatelet in TAVR patients who need to be on an OAC for another indication is to prevent ischemic events like MI, stroke, or death, agreed George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
But that protection apparently wasn’t needed; for patients on OAC only, “the overall risk–benefit ratio was favorable for them both ways. Although the study is small, I think the findings would be clinically meaningful,” said Dangas, who was not involved in POPULAR-TAVI but was lead author on the GALILEO trial publication.
GALILEO tested a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) against dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing TAVR but without a conventional OAC indication. The trial was halted because the DOAC group started to show an excess of bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality.
Most POPULAR-TAVI patients were on vitamin K antagonists, but about a quarter were taking DOACs. Clopidogrel was given on an open-label basis.
The trial suggests that, for TAVR patients with an indication for lifelong OAC, “it does appear to be safe to give only an anticoagulant, whether it’s warfarin or a DOAC, and not add clopidogrel,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“The bottom line appears to be that it’s no worse, and is probably better in terms of bleeding events,” said Bonow, who wasn’t involved in POPULAR-TAVI.
But there are difficulties in interpreting the trial that stem from its design and other issues, he said. For example, it can’t really be concluded that adding an antiplatelet agent to OAC in such patients who undergo TAVR, according to commonly practiced techniques, will increase the risk of bleeding compared with OAC alone.
To begin with, Bonow said, substituting aspirin for clopidogrel might have produced better double-therapy results. But the bigger issues, Bonow said, center on the discretion its operators had in whether to maintain or suspend the patients’ OAC during the TAVR procedure, as well as the unusual bleeding definitions used in the trial.
The first POPULAR-TAVI primary end point was any bleeding that met Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria; the second was nonprocedural bleeding that met the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition.
“Because the VARC-2 classification does not distinguish between procedure-related and nonprocedure-related bleeding events, procedure-related events were defined as BARC type 4 severe bleeding,” the trial’s journal report states. Therefore, “most bleeding at the puncture site was counted as nonprocedure-related.”
It may be Bonow’s biggest issue with the trial, he said. “They’re terming these events that occurred periprocedurally, in the first day or first hours of the procedure, as being ‘nonprocedural’ because they didn’t represent severe BARC bleeding, where you have a subarachnoid hemorrhage or require transfusions.”
An editorial accompanying the trial report also knocks this aspect of the trial design. Although the trial “confirmed” a higher incidence of any bleeding in the double-therapy group, “there are concerns regarding the classification of bleeding and the reliability of secondary outcome analysis,” writes Frederick Feit, MD, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.
“Bleeding occurring during TAVI or the index hospitalization was unadvisedly defined as non-procedure related, even if it occurred at the access site,” the editorial notes.
Ten Berg noted that procedural bleeding is frequent in TAVI, but the VARC-2 definition doesn’t accommodate them. So “we also used the BARC definition for procedural bleeding, BARC-4,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“However, BARC-4 describes bleeding during surgery, and it turned out that in POPULAR- TAVI only one patient had BARC-4 bleeding. So we do not at all agree with the editorial.”
Still, the trial’s reported event-rate curves show that “most of the step-up in bleeding, in either arm of the trial, occurred immediately,” Bonow observed. A more consistent, flat trend followed thereafter out to 3 months.
“So half of the bleeding in both arms of the trial occurred at the site of the arterial puncture. Though it wasn’t considered severe, it was indeed periprocedural,” Bonow said, interpreting the results.
The POPULAR-TAVI journal report says the procedures were performed according to local site protocols, and site physicians were allowed to decide whether to continue or suspend OAC. But “the trial protocol advised physicians to continue oral anticoagulation during admission for the TAVI procedure.”
Many of the patients, regardless of randomization group, “went through the procedure under full anticoagulation,” Dangas agreed. POPULAR-TAVI, it seems, “is the first anticoagulation study ever to start anticoagulation before the procedure.”
Bleeding event rates in the trial “are somewhat high because of this unusual procedural feature of the study,” Dangas said.
“It’s therefore not surprising that so much of the bleeding occurred in the first hours of the procedure itself,” observed Bonow.
The trial enrolled 313 patients in four European countries who were on OAC for an approved indication, predominantly AF, and underwent TAVR. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 45.4% were women. They were randomly assigned to receive or not receive clopidogrel in a loading dose, followed by 75 mg/d on top of their OAC for 3 months, and were followed out to a year.
All bleeding that met VARC-2 criteria, the first primary end point, occurred in 21.7% of the 157 patients on OAC alone and 34.6% of the 156 who received double therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43 - 0.90; P = .011).
The second primary end point, “nonprocedural” bleeding that met BARC-4 criteria, occurred in 21.7% and 34.0%, respectively, of patients (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44 - 0.92; P = .015).
There were also two secondary composite outcomes. The first consisted of nonprocedural bleeding, cardiovascular (CV) death, any stroke, and MI, and was seen in 31.2% of patients on OAC alone and 45.5% of those on OAC plus clopidogrel (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 - 0.92), an absolute difference that was within the prospectively defined noninferiority margins.
The other secondary end point — CV death, ischemic stroke, and MI — occurred in 13.4% of those receiving only OAC and 17.3% on added clopidogrel (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 - 1.31), which was nonsignificant for superiority.
“Could they have done better by holding the anticoagulation, whether warfarin or a DOAC, during that time? That’s what I think many centers might do if they’re performing a TAVR,” Bonow said.
“It seems to me that could have been done in this trial as well: they could have stopped the anticoagulation, done the procedure, and started the anticoagulation after, the way you would normally in a patient getting a TAVR.”
Such a practice might have reduced the risk of procedural bleeding as it is usually defined in TAVR in both groups, thereby potentially blunting any difference in bleeding rate between the two groups.
“That’s my take on it.” Still, he said, the trial’s message remains: OAC without clopidogrel is safe in POPULAR-TAVI-like patients.
Nijenhuis had no disclosures. Ten Berg disclosed no industry ties. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Bonow has previously reported no disclosures. Dangas has previously disclosed receiving grants and fees from Bayer, fees from Janssen; grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo; and other compensation from Medtronic. Feit discloses personal fees from Abbott Vascular and other relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Sapheon.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AFib-related cardiovascular deaths on the rise
PHOENIX, ARIZ. – Cardiovascular deaths and death rates related to atrial fibrillation have risen since 1999, with significant acceleration following 2009, results from a cross-sectional analysis of national data show.
“AFib is the most common arrhythmia disorder in the United States and it is estimated that it will effect more than 12 million Americans by 2030,” Yoshihiro Tanaka, MD, PhD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting. “The predicted lifetime risk ranges from 25% to 35%, and AFib is associated with an increased risk for heart failure, stroke, and death.”
A recent review reported that declines in total heart disease mortality rates in the United States have plateaued since 2011 (JAMA 2019;322[8]:780-2). However, it is not well understood what factors such as AFib contribute to this rate of plateau. In an effort to quantify U.S. trends in AFib-related CVD death rates, Dr. Tanaka and colleagues conducted a serial cross-sectional analysis of death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) database during 1999-2017.
Outcomes included age-adjusted mortality per 100,000 based on the 2000 U.S. standard population. The researchers also used joinpoint regression to calculate the average annual percentage change over time and conducted subgroup analyses by race and sex and across two age groups: 35-64 years and 65-84 years.
In all, 522,104 AFib-related CVD deaths were identified during 1999-2017. Dr. Tanaka reported that age-adjusted mortality increased from 16.0 per 100,000 persons in 1999 to 22.2 per 100,000 person in 2017, with an acceleration following an inflection point in 2009. Specifically, the average annual percentage change in AFib-related CVD deaths rose from 0.4% in 2009 to 3.5% in 2017 (P < .001). “These increases were consistent across all race-sex subgroups,” said Dr. Tanaka, of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “Relative increases were also greater in younger compared with older adults, although the absolute number of deaths in younger adults was less.”
The researchers observed that age-adjusted mortality increased across blacks and whites in both age groups, with a more pronounced increase among black and white men. Black men had the highest age-adjusted mortality among persons aged 35-64 (6.5 per 100,000 persons, compared with 4.2 among white men, 2.8 in black women, and 1.6 in white women 1.6 per 100,000). At the same time, white men had the highest age-adjusted mortality rate among those aged 65-84 years (112.5 per 100,000 persons, compared with 87.7 in black men, 77.4 in white women, and 61.3 in black women).
In an interview, one of the session’s moderators, Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, said that the study’s reliance on mortality data is a limitation. “You have to be careful with that, because it’s not the whole picture,” said Dr. Alonso, professor of epidemiology at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Atlanta. “It could be an underestimation of what is going on. The increase in recent years is probably due to a higher awareness of AFib as a risk factor for stroke; it’s more on the radar. Also, around 2009-2010, we started having new anticoagulants for AFib. It’s getting diagnosed more. When you look at coronary heart disease and stroke, there has been a decrease over time. In mortality and incidence of AFib, we don’t have that. That’s probably because we don’t know very much about what the risk factors for AFib are and how to prevent it.”
Dr. Tanaka said that the cause of increase in AFib-related CVD mortality can be classified into two major categories: a balance between case fatality of AFib and the prevalence of AFib. “The case fatality rate should have decreased over the last years,” he said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “In contrast, in the context of the aging of the population, the prevalence of AFib increased over the past years. Contributing factors include increasing awareness of AFib, a change in coding between ICD-9 and ICD-10, and a change in coding practices by physicians.”
Strengths of the study, he said, include its large sample size and the fact that the researchers were able to capture data from all death certificates filed in the United States. Limitations include the fact that the data “do not identify if changes in age-adjusted mortality rates are due to changing incidence or to case fatality rates,” he said. “CDC WONDER does not allow us to explore causes of these descriptive findings, but this would be an important next step.”
Dr. Tanaka reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Tanaka Y. EPI/Lifestyle 2020, Session 5, Abstract 15.
PHOENIX, ARIZ. – Cardiovascular deaths and death rates related to atrial fibrillation have risen since 1999, with significant acceleration following 2009, results from a cross-sectional analysis of national data show.
“AFib is the most common arrhythmia disorder in the United States and it is estimated that it will effect more than 12 million Americans by 2030,” Yoshihiro Tanaka, MD, PhD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting. “The predicted lifetime risk ranges from 25% to 35%, and AFib is associated with an increased risk for heart failure, stroke, and death.”
A recent review reported that declines in total heart disease mortality rates in the United States have plateaued since 2011 (JAMA 2019;322[8]:780-2). However, it is not well understood what factors such as AFib contribute to this rate of plateau. In an effort to quantify U.S. trends in AFib-related CVD death rates, Dr. Tanaka and colleagues conducted a serial cross-sectional analysis of death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) database during 1999-2017.
Outcomes included age-adjusted mortality per 100,000 based on the 2000 U.S. standard population. The researchers also used joinpoint regression to calculate the average annual percentage change over time and conducted subgroup analyses by race and sex and across two age groups: 35-64 years and 65-84 years.
In all, 522,104 AFib-related CVD deaths were identified during 1999-2017. Dr. Tanaka reported that age-adjusted mortality increased from 16.0 per 100,000 persons in 1999 to 22.2 per 100,000 person in 2017, with an acceleration following an inflection point in 2009. Specifically, the average annual percentage change in AFib-related CVD deaths rose from 0.4% in 2009 to 3.5% in 2017 (P < .001). “These increases were consistent across all race-sex subgroups,” said Dr. Tanaka, of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “Relative increases were also greater in younger compared with older adults, although the absolute number of deaths in younger adults was less.”
The researchers observed that age-adjusted mortality increased across blacks and whites in both age groups, with a more pronounced increase among black and white men. Black men had the highest age-adjusted mortality among persons aged 35-64 (6.5 per 100,000 persons, compared with 4.2 among white men, 2.8 in black women, and 1.6 in white women 1.6 per 100,000). At the same time, white men had the highest age-adjusted mortality rate among those aged 65-84 years (112.5 per 100,000 persons, compared with 87.7 in black men, 77.4 in white women, and 61.3 in black women).
In an interview, one of the session’s moderators, Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, said that the study’s reliance on mortality data is a limitation. “You have to be careful with that, because it’s not the whole picture,” said Dr. Alonso, professor of epidemiology at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Atlanta. “It could be an underestimation of what is going on. The increase in recent years is probably due to a higher awareness of AFib as a risk factor for stroke; it’s more on the radar. Also, around 2009-2010, we started having new anticoagulants for AFib. It’s getting diagnosed more. When you look at coronary heart disease and stroke, there has been a decrease over time. In mortality and incidence of AFib, we don’t have that. That’s probably because we don’t know very much about what the risk factors for AFib are and how to prevent it.”
Dr. Tanaka said that the cause of increase in AFib-related CVD mortality can be classified into two major categories: a balance between case fatality of AFib and the prevalence of AFib. “The case fatality rate should have decreased over the last years,” he said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “In contrast, in the context of the aging of the population, the prevalence of AFib increased over the past years. Contributing factors include increasing awareness of AFib, a change in coding between ICD-9 and ICD-10, and a change in coding practices by physicians.”
Strengths of the study, he said, include its large sample size and the fact that the researchers were able to capture data from all death certificates filed in the United States. Limitations include the fact that the data “do not identify if changes in age-adjusted mortality rates are due to changing incidence or to case fatality rates,” he said. “CDC WONDER does not allow us to explore causes of these descriptive findings, but this would be an important next step.”
Dr. Tanaka reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Tanaka Y. EPI/Lifestyle 2020, Session 5, Abstract 15.
PHOENIX, ARIZ. – Cardiovascular deaths and death rates related to atrial fibrillation have risen since 1999, with significant acceleration following 2009, results from a cross-sectional analysis of national data show.
“AFib is the most common arrhythmia disorder in the United States and it is estimated that it will effect more than 12 million Americans by 2030,” Yoshihiro Tanaka, MD, PhD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting. “The predicted lifetime risk ranges from 25% to 35%, and AFib is associated with an increased risk for heart failure, stroke, and death.”
A recent review reported that declines in total heart disease mortality rates in the United States have plateaued since 2011 (JAMA 2019;322[8]:780-2). However, it is not well understood what factors such as AFib contribute to this rate of plateau. In an effort to quantify U.S. trends in AFib-related CVD death rates, Dr. Tanaka and colleagues conducted a serial cross-sectional analysis of death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) database during 1999-2017.
Outcomes included age-adjusted mortality per 100,000 based on the 2000 U.S. standard population. The researchers also used joinpoint regression to calculate the average annual percentage change over time and conducted subgroup analyses by race and sex and across two age groups: 35-64 years and 65-84 years.
In all, 522,104 AFib-related CVD deaths were identified during 1999-2017. Dr. Tanaka reported that age-adjusted mortality increased from 16.0 per 100,000 persons in 1999 to 22.2 per 100,000 person in 2017, with an acceleration following an inflection point in 2009. Specifically, the average annual percentage change in AFib-related CVD deaths rose from 0.4% in 2009 to 3.5% in 2017 (P < .001). “These increases were consistent across all race-sex subgroups,” said Dr. Tanaka, of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “Relative increases were also greater in younger compared with older adults, although the absolute number of deaths in younger adults was less.”
The researchers observed that age-adjusted mortality increased across blacks and whites in both age groups, with a more pronounced increase among black and white men. Black men had the highest age-adjusted mortality among persons aged 35-64 (6.5 per 100,000 persons, compared with 4.2 among white men, 2.8 in black women, and 1.6 in white women 1.6 per 100,000). At the same time, white men had the highest age-adjusted mortality rate among those aged 65-84 years (112.5 per 100,000 persons, compared with 87.7 in black men, 77.4 in white women, and 61.3 in black women).
In an interview, one of the session’s moderators, Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, said that the study’s reliance on mortality data is a limitation. “You have to be careful with that, because it’s not the whole picture,” said Dr. Alonso, professor of epidemiology at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Atlanta. “It could be an underestimation of what is going on. The increase in recent years is probably due to a higher awareness of AFib as a risk factor for stroke; it’s more on the radar. Also, around 2009-2010, we started having new anticoagulants for AFib. It’s getting diagnosed more. When you look at coronary heart disease and stroke, there has been a decrease over time. In mortality and incidence of AFib, we don’t have that. That’s probably because we don’t know very much about what the risk factors for AFib are and how to prevent it.”
Dr. Tanaka said that the cause of increase in AFib-related CVD mortality can be classified into two major categories: a balance between case fatality of AFib and the prevalence of AFib. “The case fatality rate should have decreased over the last years,” he said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “In contrast, in the context of the aging of the population, the prevalence of AFib increased over the past years. Contributing factors include increasing awareness of AFib, a change in coding between ICD-9 and ICD-10, and a change in coding practices by physicians.”
Strengths of the study, he said, include its large sample size and the fact that the researchers were able to capture data from all death certificates filed in the United States. Limitations include the fact that the data “do not identify if changes in age-adjusted mortality rates are due to changing incidence or to case fatality rates,” he said. “CDC WONDER does not allow us to explore causes of these descriptive findings, but this would be an important next step.”
Dr. Tanaka reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Tanaka Y. EPI/Lifestyle 2020, Session 5, Abstract 15.
REPORTING FROM EPI/LIFESTYLE 2020
AUGUSTUS: Apixaban surpassed warfarin despite prior stroke or thromboembolism
LOS ANGELES – The edge that the direct-acting oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) has over warfarin for safely preventing ischemic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and either a recent acute coronary syndrome event or a recent percutaneous coronary intervention held up even in patients with a history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or thromboembolic event, according to a prespecified secondary analysis of data collected in the AUGUSTUS trial.
The treatment advantages of apixaban, compared with warfarin, seen in the overall AUGUSTUS results, first reported in March 2019, “were consistent” with the benefits seen in the subgroup of enrolled patients with a prior stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or thromboembolic (TE) event, M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
All patients in AUGUSTUS received a P2Y12 inhibitor antiplatelet drug, which was clopidogrel for more than 90% of patients. The two-by-two factorial design of AUGUSTUS also assessed the safety and efficacy of either adding or withholding aspirin from the two-drug regimen that all patients in the study received with a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an anticoagulant (apixaban or warfarin). The most notable finding of the aspirin versus placebo analysis was that patients without a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event had a “more profound” increase in their rate of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds when also treated with aspirin, compared with patients who received aspirin and had a history of stroke, TIA, or TE event, reported Dr. Bahit, a chief of cardiology and director of clinical research at the INECO Foundation in Rosario, Argentina.
In general, the findings of the secondary analysis that took into account stroke, TIA, or TE history “confirmed” the main AUGUSTUS findings, Dr. Bahit said; an antithrombotic regimen of apixaban plus clopidogrel (or other P2Y12 inhibitor) without aspirin was superior for both efficacy and safety, compared with the alternative regimens that either substituted warfarin for apixaban or that added aspirin.
AUGUSTUS enrolled 4,614 atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients who either had a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event or had recently undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds after 6 months, which was significantly lower in the subgroups that received apixaban instead of warfarin and in patients who received placebo instead of aspirin. The secondary endpoint of death or hospitalization after 6 months was also significantly lower in the apixaban-treated patients, compared with those on warfarin, while the aspirin and placebo subgroups showed no difference in the incidence of these events (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).
The results reported by Dr. Bahit also highlighted both the high risk faced by patients with AFib who also have had an ACS event or PCI, as well as a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event, noted Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chairman of neurology at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. “It’s difficult, because these patients had an ACS event or PCI, and you don’t want a coronary too close up, but do these patients really need a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an anticoagulant? Could these patients do as well on apixaban only? I would have liked to see that treatment arm in the study,” Dr. Goldstein commented in an interview.
“These are challenging patients because they often require anticoagulation for the AFib as well as antiplatelet agents” for the recent PCI or ACS event, commented Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York. “The question has always been: How many blood thinners should these patients be on? Potentially they could be on three different agents [an anticoagulant and two antiplatelet drugs], and we know that all of those drugs together pretty dramatically increase the risk of bleeding. About 15% of the patients in the overall AUGUSTUS trial had either cerebrovascular disease or systemic thromboembolism, so this was a small subgroup of the overall trial, but the overall trial was large so it’s a significant number of patients who met this criteria. The results confirmed that even in a group of patients who may be considered at high risk because they have a prior history of cerebrovascular disease use of apixaban instead of warfarin seemed safer, and that those patients did not need to be on aspirin as well as their other antiplatelet agent. Patients with a history of stroke, in fact, had a lower risk of bleeding than the other patients in this trial, so one could argue that they should be on an agent like apixaban as well as an antiplatelet agent like clopidogrel without addition of aspirin,” he said in a recorded statement.
In addition to implications for using prescription drugs like apixaban and clopidogrel, the findings also send a message about the need for very aggressive implementation of lifestyle measures that can reduce cardiovascular disease risk in these patients, added Dr. Goldstein. The AUGUSTUS outcome analyses that subdivided the study population into those with a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event – 633 patients or about 14% of the 4,581 patients eligible for this analysis – and those who did not have this history showed the extremely high, incrementally elevated risk faced by patients with these prior events.
A history of stroke, TIA, or TE event linked with a jump in the 90-day rate of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds from 13% without this history to 17%, which is a 31% relative increase; it boosted the 90-day rate of death or hospitalization from 25% to 31%, a 24% relative increase; and it jacked up the rate of death or ischemic events from 6% to 9%, a 50% relative increase, Dr. Bahit reported.
These substantial increases “suggest we need to be very aggressive” in managing these high-risk patients who combine a background of AFib, a prior stroke, TIA, or TE events, and a recent ACS event or PCI, Dr. Goldstein observed. In these patients, he suggested that clinicians make sure to address smoking cessation, obesity, exercise, diet, and statin use, and get each of these to an optimal level to further cut risk. If all five of these basic interventions were successfully administered to a patient they could collectively cut the patient’s event risk by about 80%, he added.
AUGUSTUS was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that jointly market apixaban. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Pfizer, and from CSL Behring and Merck. Dr. Elkind and Dr. Goldstein had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Bahit MC et al. ISC 2020, Abstract LB22.
LOS ANGELES – The edge that the direct-acting oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) has over warfarin for safely preventing ischemic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and either a recent acute coronary syndrome event or a recent percutaneous coronary intervention held up even in patients with a history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or thromboembolic event, according to a prespecified secondary analysis of data collected in the AUGUSTUS trial.
The treatment advantages of apixaban, compared with warfarin, seen in the overall AUGUSTUS results, first reported in March 2019, “were consistent” with the benefits seen in the subgroup of enrolled patients with a prior stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or thromboembolic (TE) event, M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
All patients in AUGUSTUS received a P2Y12 inhibitor antiplatelet drug, which was clopidogrel for more than 90% of patients. The two-by-two factorial design of AUGUSTUS also assessed the safety and efficacy of either adding or withholding aspirin from the two-drug regimen that all patients in the study received with a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an anticoagulant (apixaban or warfarin). The most notable finding of the aspirin versus placebo analysis was that patients without a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event had a “more profound” increase in their rate of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds when also treated with aspirin, compared with patients who received aspirin and had a history of stroke, TIA, or TE event, reported Dr. Bahit, a chief of cardiology and director of clinical research at the INECO Foundation in Rosario, Argentina.
In general, the findings of the secondary analysis that took into account stroke, TIA, or TE history “confirmed” the main AUGUSTUS findings, Dr. Bahit said; an antithrombotic regimen of apixaban plus clopidogrel (or other P2Y12 inhibitor) without aspirin was superior for both efficacy and safety, compared with the alternative regimens that either substituted warfarin for apixaban or that added aspirin.
AUGUSTUS enrolled 4,614 atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients who either had a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event or had recently undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds after 6 months, which was significantly lower in the subgroups that received apixaban instead of warfarin and in patients who received placebo instead of aspirin. The secondary endpoint of death or hospitalization after 6 months was also significantly lower in the apixaban-treated patients, compared with those on warfarin, while the aspirin and placebo subgroups showed no difference in the incidence of these events (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).
The results reported by Dr. Bahit also highlighted both the high risk faced by patients with AFib who also have had an ACS event or PCI, as well as a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event, noted Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chairman of neurology at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. “It’s difficult, because these patients had an ACS event or PCI, and you don’t want a coronary too close up, but do these patients really need a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an anticoagulant? Could these patients do as well on apixaban only? I would have liked to see that treatment arm in the study,” Dr. Goldstein commented in an interview.
“These are challenging patients because they often require anticoagulation for the AFib as well as antiplatelet agents” for the recent PCI or ACS event, commented Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York. “The question has always been: How many blood thinners should these patients be on? Potentially they could be on three different agents [an anticoagulant and two antiplatelet drugs], and we know that all of those drugs together pretty dramatically increase the risk of bleeding. About 15% of the patients in the overall AUGUSTUS trial had either cerebrovascular disease or systemic thromboembolism, so this was a small subgroup of the overall trial, but the overall trial was large so it’s a significant number of patients who met this criteria. The results confirmed that even in a group of patients who may be considered at high risk because they have a prior history of cerebrovascular disease use of apixaban instead of warfarin seemed safer, and that those patients did not need to be on aspirin as well as their other antiplatelet agent. Patients with a history of stroke, in fact, had a lower risk of bleeding than the other patients in this trial, so one could argue that they should be on an agent like apixaban as well as an antiplatelet agent like clopidogrel without addition of aspirin,” he said in a recorded statement.
In addition to implications for using prescription drugs like apixaban and clopidogrel, the findings also send a message about the need for very aggressive implementation of lifestyle measures that can reduce cardiovascular disease risk in these patients, added Dr. Goldstein. The AUGUSTUS outcome analyses that subdivided the study population into those with a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event – 633 patients or about 14% of the 4,581 patients eligible for this analysis – and those who did not have this history showed the extremely high, incrementally elevated risk faced by patients with these prior events.
A history of stroke, TIA, or TE event linked with a jump in the 90-day rate of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds from 13% without this history to 17%, which is a 31% relative increase; it boosted the 90-day rate of death or hospitalization from 25% to 31%, a 24% relative increase; and it jacked up the rate of death or ischemic events from 6% to 9%, a 50% relative increase, Dr. Bahit reported.
These substantial increases “suggest we need to be very aggressive” in managing these high-risk patients who combine a background of AFib, a prior stroke, TIA, or TE events, and a recent ACS event or PCI, Dr. Goldstein observed. In these patients, he suggested that clinicians make sure to address smoking cessation, obesity, exercise, diet, and statin use, and get each of these to an optimal level to further cut risk. If all five of these basic interventions were successfully administered to a patient they could collectively cut the patient’s event risk by about 80%, he added.
AUGUSTUS was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that jointly market apixaban. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Pfizer, and from CSL Behring and Merck. Dr. Elkind and Dr. Goldstein had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Bahit MC et al. ISC 2020, Abstract LB22.
LOS ANGELES – The edge that the direct-acting oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) has over warfarin for safely preventing ischemic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and either a recent acute coronary syndrome event or a recent percutaneous coronary intervention held up even in patients with a history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or thromboembolic event, according to a prespecified secondary analysis of data collected in the AUGUSTUS trial.
The treatment advantages of apixaban, compared with warfarin, seen in the overall AUGUSTUS results, first reported in March 2019, “were consistent” with the benefits seen in the subgroup of enrolled patients with a prior stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or thromboembolic (TE) event, M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
All patients in AUGUSTUS received a P2Y12 inhibitor antiplatelet drug, which was clopidogrel for more than 90% of patients. The two-by-two factorial design of AUGUSTUS also assessed the safety and efficacy of either adding or withholding aspirin from the two-drug regimen that all patients in the study received with a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an anticoagulant (apixaban or warfarin). The most notable finding of the aspirin versus placebo analysis was that patients without a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event had a “more profound” increase in their rate of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds when also treated with aspirin, compared with patients who received aspirin and had a history of stroke, TIA, or TE event, reported Dr. Bahit, a chief of cardiology and director of clinical research at the INECO Foundation in Rosario, Argentina.
In general, the findings of the secondary analysis that took into account stroke, TIA, or TE history “confirmed” the main AUGUSTUS findings, Dr. Bahit said; an antithrombotic regimen of apixaban plus clopidogrel (or other P2Y12 inhibitor) without aspirin was superior for both efficacy and safety, compared with the alternative regimens that either substituted warfarin for apixaban or that added aspirin.
AUGUSTUS enrolled 4,614 atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients who either had a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event or had recently undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds after 6 months, which was significantly lower in the subgroups that received apixaban instead of warfarin and in patients who received placebo instead of aspirin. The secondary endpoint of death or hospitalization after 6 months was also significantly lower in the apixaban-treated patients, compared with those on warfarin, while the aspirin and placebo subgroups showed no difference in the incidence of these events (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).
The results reported by Dr. Bahit also highlighted both the high risk faced by patients with AFib who also have had an ACS event or PCI, as well as a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event, noted Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chairman of neurology at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. “It’s difficult, because these patients had an ACS event or PCI, and you don’t want a coronary too close up, but do these patients really need a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an anticoagulant? Could these patients do as well on apixaban only? I would have liked to see that treatment arm in the study,” Dr. Goldstein commented in an interview.
“These are challenging patients because they often require anticoagulation for the AFib as well as antiplatelet agents” for the recent PCI or ACS event, commented Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York. “The question has always been: How many blood thinners should these patients be on? Potentially they could be on three different agents [an anticoagulant and two antiplatelet drugs], and we know that all of those drugs together pretty dramatically increase the risk of bleeding. About 15% of the patients in the overall AUGUSTUS trial had either cerebrovascular disease or systemic thromboembolism, so this was a small subgroup of the overall trial, but the overall trial was large so it’s a significant number of patients who met this criteria. The results confirmed that even in a group of patients who may be considered at high risk because they have a prior history of cerebrovascular disease use of apixaban instead of warfarin seemed safer, and that those patients did not need to be on aspirin as well as their other antiplatelet agent. Patients with a history of stroke, in fact, had a lower risk of bleeding than the other patients in this trial, so one could argue that they should be on an agent like apixaban as well as an antiplatelet agent like clopidogrel without addition of aspirin,” he said in a recorded statement.
In addition to implications for using prescription drugs like apixaban and clopidogrel, the findings also send a message about the need for very aggressive implementation of lifestyle measures that can reduce cardiovascular disease risk in these patients, added Dr. Goldstein. The AUGUSTUS outcome analyses that subdivided the study population into those with a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event – 633 patients or about 14% of the 4,581 patients eligible for this analysis – and those who did not have this history showed the extremely high, incrementally elevated risk faced by patients with these prior events.
A history of stroke, TIA, or TE event linked with a jump in the 90-day rate of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds from 13% without this history to 17%, which is a 31% relative increase; it boosted the 90-day rate of death or hospitalization from 25% to 31%, a 24% relative increase; and it jacked up the rate of death or ischemic events from 6% to 9%, a 50% relative increase, Dr. Bahit reported.
These substantial increases “suggest we need to be very aggressive” in managing these high-risk patients who combine a background of AFib, a prior stroke, TIA, or TE events, and a recent ACS event or PCI, Dr. Goldstein observed. In these patients, he suggested that clinicians make sure to address smoking cessation, obesity, exercise, diet, and statin use, and get each of these to an optimal level to further cut risk. If all five of these basic interventions were successfully administered to a patient they could collectively cut the patient’s event risk by about 80%, he added.
AUGUSTUS was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that jointly market apixaban. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Pfizer, and from CSL Behring and Merck. Dr. Elkind and Dr. Goldstein had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Bahit MC et al. ISC 2020, Abstract LB22.
REPORTING FROM ISC 2020