MDedge Emergency Medicine

Just over 1.35 million children under age 12 years have received the COVID-19 vaccine since it was approved on Nov. 2, putting them behind the initial pace set by 12- to 15-year-olds in the spring, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Specific figures for children aged 5-11 years are not yet available, but CDC data show that 1.55 million children under the age of 12 years had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine as of Nov. 15, of whom almost 204,000 already had been vaccinated before Nov. 2. For children aged 12-15, the first 2 weeks after approval on May 12 produced almost 2.1 million vaccine initiations, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

That dataset reveals several other noteworthy differences between the two age groups in the 10 days after approval:
 

• There were over 7,000 vaccine initiations on the first day in the 12-15 group; the younger group had 32.
• The older children reached 100,000 per day in 3 days; the younger children took 8 days.
• The older group topped 200,000 vaccinations per day on six different days; the younger group didn’t get above 175,000.

Children under 12 made up 27.5% of vaccine initiations in all age groups during the 2 weeks from Nov. 2 to Nov. 15, versus 3.4% for 12- to 15-year-olds and 1.2% for 16- and 17-year-olds, the CDC said, while also reporting that 3.6% of children under age 12 had received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine, compared with 57.8% of those aged 12-15 and 64.4% of 16- to 17-year-olds.

Meanwhile, the first full week of November marked the second consecutive increase in the number of weekly child COVID cases, with 122,000 reported for Nov. 5-11. The number of new cases has now surpassed 100,000 for 14 consecutive weeks, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report. That report, which covers state health departments, has not included current information from Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas since the summer.

Regionally, the increases over the past 2 weeks were spread out among the East, the Midwest, and the West, while the decline that had been going on for several weeks in the South has largely come to a halt. The states with the highest percent increases over those 2 weeks are all in New England: Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, the AAP and CHA noted. In a separate report, the AAP said that Vermont has the second-highest child vaccination rate (81%) in the country, just behind Massachusetts (82%).

rfranki@mdedge.com

Just over 1.35 million children under age 12 years have received the COVID-19 vaccine since it was approved on Nov. 2, putting them behind the initial pace set by 12- to 15-year-olds in the spring, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Specific figures for children aged 5-11 years are not yet available, but CDC data show that 1.55 million children under the age of 12 years had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine as of Nov. 15, of whom almost 204,000 already had been vaccinated before Nov. 2. For children aged 12-15, the first 2 weeks after approval on May 12 produced almost 2.1 million vaccine initiations, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

That dataset reveals several other noteworthy differences between the two age groups in the 10 days after approval:
 

• There were over 7,000 vaccine initiations on the first day in the 12-15 group; the younger group had 32.
• The older children reached 100,000 per day in 3 days; the younger children took 8 days.
• The older group topped 200,000 vaccinations per day on six different days; the younger group didn’t get above 175,000.

Children under 12 made up 27.5% of vaccine initiations in all age groups during the 2 weeks from Nov. 2 to Nov. 15, versus 3.4% for 12- to 15-year-olds and 1.2% for 16- and 17-year-olds, the CDC said, while also reporting that 3.6% of children under age 12 had received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine, compared with 57.8% of those aged 12-15 and 64.4% of 16- to 17-year-olds.

Meanwhile, the first full week of November marked the second consecutive increase in the number of weekly child COVID cases, with 122,000 reported for Nov. 5-11. The number of new cases has now surpassed 100,000 for 14 consecutive weeks, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report. That report, which covers state health departments, has not included current information from Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas since the summer.

Regionally, the increases over the past 2 weeks were spread out among the East, the Midwest, and the West, while the decline that had been going on for several weeks in the South has largely come to a halt. The states with the highest percent increases over those 2 weeks are all in New England: Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, the AAP and CHA noted. In a separate report, the AAP said that Vermont has the second-highest child vaccination rate (81%) in the country, just behind Massachusetts (82%).

rfranki@mdedge.com

Just over 1.35 million children under age 12 years have received the COVID-19 vaccine since it was approved on Nov. 2, putting them behind the initial pace set by 12- to 15-year-olds in the spring, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Specific figures for children aged 5-11 years are not yet available, but CDC data show that 1.55 million children under the age of 12 years had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine as of Nov. 15, of whom almost 204,000 already had been vaccinated before Nov. 2. For children aged 12-15, the first 2 weeks after approval on May 12 produced almost 2.1 million vaccine initiations, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

That dataset reveals several other noteworthy differences between the two age groups in the 10 days after approval:
 

• There were over 7,000 vaccine initiations on the first day in the 12-15 group; the younger group had 32.
• The older children reached 100,000 per day in 3 days; the younger children took 8 days.
• The older group topped 200,000 vaccinations per day on six different days; the younger group didn’t get above 175,000.

Children under 12 made up 27.5% of vaccine initiations in all age groups during the 2 weeks from Nov. 2 to Nov. 15, versus 3.4% for 12- to 15-year-olds and 1.2% for 16- and 17-year-olds, the CDC said, while also reporting that 3.6% of children under age 12 had received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine, compared with 57.8% of those aged 12-15 and 64.4% of 16- to 17-year-olds.

Meanwhile, the first full week of November marked the second consecutive increase in the number of weekly child COVID cases, with 122,000 reported for Nov. 5-11. The number of new cases has now surpassed 100,000 for 14 consecutive weeks, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report. That report, which covers state health departments, has not included current information from Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas since the summer.

Regionally, the increases over the past 2 weeks were spread out among the East, the Midwest, and the West, while the decline that had been going on for several weeks in the South has largely come to a halt. The states with the highest percent increases over those 2 weeks are all in New England: Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, the AAP and CHA noted. In a separate report, the AAP said that Vermont has the second-highest child vaccination rate (81%) in the country, just behind Massachusetts (82%).

rfranki@mdedge.com

A recent article published in Nature Methods highlights how hierarchical phase-contrast tomography (HiP-CT), an x-ray phase propagation technique that uses spatial coherence to conduct three-dimensional scans of organs ex vivo, may offer clinicians greater insights into disease processes.

“It is not a clinical technique as such,” said Claire Walsh PhD, a biophysicist and senior research fellow at the Center for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, University College London, and one of the authors of the article. She stressed that HiP-CT is used ex vivo.

“This technology uses x-rays from a fourth-generation x-ray source, the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility’s Extremely Brilliant Source. It is an incredibly bright x-ray source,” said Dr. Walsh in an interview. She said synchrotron x-ray tomography provides a much enhanced view of the lungs of persons who had had COVID-19. “We are looking at a different property of the x-ray waves. We are looking at a phase shift. [HiP-CT] is much, much more sensitive to small changes in the tissue than x-ray or CT. Another massive advantage of HiP-CT is the resolution it offers. The resolution goes down to single cells inside an intact human organ,” she said.

The resolution permits researchers to view blood vessels 5 μm in diameter in an intact lung. In comparison, clinical CT images show blood vessels of around 1 mm in diameter – 200 times larger.

“This technique will help us understand the structure of organs at a more fundamental level,” said Dr. Walsh. She noted that the technology has been valuable in allowing greater understanding of COVID-19 disease process. “This is about building an understanding of what the disease is doing in our bodies. If we don’t understand what the disease is changing structurally, it is very hard to understand how to go about developing treatments,” she said.

There are few synchrotron radiation facilities, so this technology is not widely available. Because of the very high radiation dose, the technique will be used ex vivo for the foreseeable future, Dr. Walsh said.

“The x-ray dose is incredibly high; 2-kg normal CT scans are approximately 100 mG [milligauss]. This is 20,000 times more than a medical CT scan,” explained Dr. Walsh. “We don’t really have plans for this to become an in vivo human technique. We are aiming that we will be able to register clinical scans to HiP-CT in a few cases, and so HiP-CT will become a calibration for analyzing clinical techniques.”

Elsie T. Nguyen, MD, FRCPC, vice-president of the Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology and associate professor of radiology, University of Toronto, noted that the technology will be valuable in pathology and radiology.

“HiP-CT appears to be an exciting new development that can help physicians, including radiologists, understand pathology that was once beyond the spatial resolution of computed tomography scans,” said Dr. Nguyen in an interview. “The fact that vascular abnormalities particularly relating to severe COVID-19 pneumonia can be visualized to the micron level is very novel and exciting. This will help us understand better from a mechanistic point of view what is happening to the blood vessels that contributes to worse outcomes, like shunting of blood or blood clots, and may have applications for prognostication to predict which patients are likely to survive severe COVID-19 pneumonia.”

Dr. Nguyen noted that HiP-CT could help thoracic radiologists better visualize honeycomb cysts associated with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). It could help to classify the type of fibrotic ILD and inform patient prognosis.

“Currently, we struggle to differentiate early honeycomb cysts, which are a sign of more advanced lung destruction, from traction bronchiolectasis, that is, dilated airways due to surrounding fibrotic lung, on high-resolution computed tomography of the lungs,” said Dr. Nguyen. She said HiP-CT was very promising and had many applications in addition to visualizing the lungs.

The research was funded by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the ESRF, the UK-MRC, and the Royal Academy of Engineering. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Nguyen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent article published in Nature Methods highlights how hierarchical phase-contrast tomography (HiP-CT), an x-ray phase propagation technique that uses spatial coherence to conduct three-dimensional scans of organs ex vivo, may offer clinicians greater insights into disease processes.

“It is not a clinical technique as such,” said Claire Walsh PhD, a biophysicist and senior research fellow at the Center for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, University College London, and one of the authors of the article. She stressed that HiP-CT is used ex vivo.

“This technology uses x-rays from a fourth-generation x-ray source, the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility’s Extremely Brilliant Source. It is an incredibly bright x-ray source,” said Dr. Walsh in an interview. She said synchrotron x-ray tomography provides a much enhanced view of the lungs of persons who had had COVID-19. “We are looking at a different property of the x-ray waves. We are looking at a phase shift. [HiP-CT] is much, much more sensitive to small changes in the tissue than x-ray or CT. Another massive advantage of HiP-CT is the resolution it offers. The resolution goes down to single cells inside an intact human organ,” she said.

The resolution permits researchers to view blood vessels 5 μm in diameter in an intact lung. In comparison, clinical CT images show blood vessels of around 1 mm in diameter – 200 times larger.

“This technique will help us understand the structure of organs at a more fundamental level,” said Dr. Walsh. She noted that the technology has been valuable in allowing greater understanding of COVID-19 disease process. “This is about building an understanding of what the disease is doing in our bodies. If we don’t understand what the disease is changing structurally, it is very hard to understand how to go about developing treatments,” she said.

There are few synchrotron radiation facilities, so this technology is not widely available. Because of the very high radiation dose, the technique will be used ex vivo for the foreseeable future, Dr. Walsh said.

“The x-ray dose is incredibly high; 2-kg normal CT scans are approximately 100 mG [milligauss]. This is 20,000 times more than a medical CT scan,” explained Dr. Walsh. “We don’t really have plans for this to become an in vivo human technique. We are aiming that we will be able to register clinical scans to HiP-CT in a few cases, and so HiP-CT will become a calibration for analyzing clinical techniques.”

Elsie T. Nguyen, MD, FRCPC, vice-president of the Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology and associate professor of radiology, University of Toronto, noted that the technology will be valuable in pathology and radiology.

“HiP-CT appears to be an exciting new development that can help physicians, including radiologists, understand pathology that was once beyond the spatial resolution of computed tomography scans,” said Dr. Nguyen in an interview. “The fact that vascular abnormalities particularly relating to severe COVID-19 pneumonia can be visualized to the micron level is very novel and exciting. This will help us understand better from a mechanistic point of view what is happening to the blood vessels that contributes to worse outcomes, like shunting of blood or blood clots, and may have applications for prognostication to predict which patients are likely to survive severe COVID-19 pneumonia.”

Dr. Nguyen noted that HiP-CT could help thoracic radiologists better visualize honeycomb cysts associated with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). It could help to classify the type of fibrotic ILD and inform patient prognosis.

“Currently, we struggle to differentiate early honeycomb cysts, which are a sign of more advanced lung destruction, from traction bronchiolectasis, that is, dilated airways due to surrounding fibrotic lung, on high-resolution computed tomography of the lungs,” said Dr. Nguyen. She said HiP-CT was very promising and had many applications in addition to visualizing the lungs.

The research was funded by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the ESRF, the UK-MRC, and the Royal Academy of Engineering. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Nguyen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent article published in Nature Methods highlights how hierarchical phase-contrast tomography (HiP-CT), an x-ray phase propagation technique that uses spatial coherence to conduct three-dimensional scans of organs ex vivo, may offer clinicians greater insights into disease processes.

“It is not a clinical technique as such,” said Claire Walsh PhD, a biophysicist and senior research fellow at the Center for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, University College London, and one of the authors of the article. She stressed that HiP-CT is used ex vivo.

“This technology uses x-rays from a fourth-generation x-ray source, the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility’s Extremely Brilliant Source. It is an incredibly bright x-ray source,” said Dr. Walsh in an interview. She said synchrotron x-ray tomography provides a much enhanced view of the lungs of persons who had had COVID-19. “We are looking at a different property of the x-ray waves. We are looking at a phase shift. [HiP-CT] is much, much more sensitive to small changes in the tissue than x-ray or CT. Another massive advantage of HiP-CT is the resolution it offers. The resolution goes down to single cells inside an intact human organ,” she said.

The resolution permits researchers to view blood vessels 5 μm in diameter in an intact lung. In comparison, clinical CT images show blood vessels of around 1 mm in diameter – 200 times larger.

“This technique will help us understand the structure of organs at a more fundamental level,” said Dr. Walsh. She noted that the technology has been valuable in allowing greater understanding of COVID-19 disease process. “This is about building an understanding of what the disease is doing in our bodies. If we don’t understand what the disease is changing structurally, it is very hard to understand how to go about developing treatments,” she said.

There are few synchrotron radiation facilities, so this technology is not widely available. Because of the very high radiation dose, the technique will be used ex vivo for the foreseeable future, Dr. Walsh said.

“The x-ray dose is incredibly high; 2-kg normal CT scans are approximately 100 mG [milligauss]. This is 20,000 times more than a medical CT scan,” explained Dr. Walsh. “We don’t really have plans for this to become an in vivo human technique. We are aiming that we will be able to register clinical scans to HiP-CT in a few cases, and so HiP-CT will become a calibration for analyzing clinical techniques.”

Elsie T. Nguyen, MD, FRCPC, vice-president of the Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology and associate professor of radiology, University of Toronto, noted that the technology will be valuable in pathology and radiology.

“HiP-CT appears to be an exciting new development that can help physicians, including radiologists, understand pathology that was once beyond the spatial resolution of computed tomography scans,” said Dr. Nguyen in an interview. “The fact that vascular abnormalities particularly relating to severe COVID-19 pneumonia can be visualized to the micron level is very novel and exciting. This will help us understand better from a mechanistic point of view what is happening to the blood vessels that contributes to worse outcomes, like shunting of blood or blood clots, and may have applications for prognostication to predict which patients are likely to survive severe COVID-19 pneumonia.”

Dr. Nguyen noted that HiP-CT could help thoracic radiologists better visualize honeycomb cysts associated with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). It could help to classify the type of fibrotic ILD and inform patient prognosis.

“Currently, we struggle to differentiate early honeycomb cysts, which are a sign of more advanced lung destruction, from traction bronchiolectasis, that is, dilated airways due to surrounding fibrotic lung, on high-resolution computed tomography of the lungs,” said Dr. Nguyen. She said HiP-CT was very promising and had many applications in addition to visualizing the lungs.

The research was funded by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the ESRF, the UK-MRC, and the Royal Academy of Engineering. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Nguyen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A high dose of the purified form of eicosapentaenoic acid, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), failed to significantly reduce hospitalizations or death in patients infected with COVID-19 in the PREPARE-IT 2 study.

The study did, however, show a favorable trend, with a 16% reduction in the primary endpoint of death or an indication for hospitalization. All secondary endpoints were also numerically reduced, but none reached statistical significance.

The product was also well tolerated over the 28 days of the study period, even though a new high-loading dose was used, with no increase in atrial fibrillation or bleeding or other adverse events versus placebo, although there was a slightly higher rate of discontinuation.

The trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions on Nov. 15 by Rafael Díaz, MD, director of Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica in Rosario, Argentina.

“Larger, randomized trials powered for a relative risk reduction of around 15% with icosapent ethyl are needed to establish whether or not this product may have a role in the management of COVID-positive outpatients,” Dr. Diaz concluded.
 

‘Intriguing signals’

Commenting on the study, Manesh Patel, MD, chief of the division of cardiology and codirector of the Heart Center at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and chair of the Scientific Sessions scientific program, said that: “Certainly there are some intriguing signals.”

“I think the trend is valuable, but do we need a larger trial to confirm a benefit? I will leave that to the clinical community to decide,” Dr. Patel added. “But it is hard to power a trial to get that answer, and the world of COVID has changed since this trial started with vaccines now available and new therapeutics coming. So, there’s going to be a competing landscape.”

Discussing the trial at an AHA news briefing, Erin Michos, MD, associate professor of medicine within the division of cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said: “Results showed that everything trended in the right direction, but did not reach statistical significance largely because there were fewer events than anticipated. COVID hospitalizations are going down because of the broad adoption of vaccines, which meant that this study didn’t quite meet its endpoint.”

But, she added: “Reassuringly, even with the higher loading dose, there was no increased risk of [atrial fibrillation] when used for just 28 days, and no increased risk in bleeding, so there was very good safety.”

“We need a larger trial to really definitely show whether icosapent ethyl can or cannot help COVID-positive outpatients, but I think a better prevention strategy would be the broad adoption of vaccinations globally,” Dr. Michos concluded.
 

‘A pretty big ask’

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, AHA president and designated discussant at the late-breaking science session, congratulated the investigators on conducting “a very nice pragmatic trial in the midst of the COVID pandemic.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones concluded that the broad range of potentially beneficial actions of icosapent ethyl – including antitriglyceride, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and antithrombotic effects – leads to the possibility of it helping in COVID, but he added that “this is a pretty big ask for a fish oil supplement given short term.”

Presenting the study, Dr. Diaz noted that there are limited options for the outpatient treatment of patients with COVID-19 infection, and it is believed that inflammation plays a major role in worsening the severity of the infection.

He pointed out that previous data support a potential role of omega-3 fatty acids in reducing inflammation and infection, and that icosapent ethyl has shown a reduction in major cardiovascular events in the REDUCE-IT trial, with the mechanism thought to involve anti-inflammatory effects.

In the first trial to investigate the role of icosapent ethyl in COVID-19, PREPARE-IT, the product did not prevent uninfected individuals at risk from COVID from becoming infected with the virus, but there was no increase in side effects versus placebo with use over a 60-day period.

A small study last year in 100 COVID-positive patients showed icosapent ethyl reduced C-reactive protein, an inflammatory marker, and also improved symptoms.

PREPARE-IT 2, a pragmatic web-based trial, was conducted to investigate whether icosapent ethyl in nonhospitalized patients with a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 could reduce hospitalization rates and complications.

The trial enrolled 2,052 patients (mean age, 50 years), of whom 1,010 were allocated to the active group and 1,042 to the placebo group. Inclusion criteria included individuals aged 40 years or older with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis and no more than 7 days from the onset of symptoms and without a clear indication for hospitalization.

Patients who were allocated to the active arm received icosapent ethyl at a dose of 8 g (four capsules every 12 hours, morning and evening) for the first 3 days, followed by 4 g (two capsules every 12 hours) thereafter (days 4-28).

The primary outcome, COVID-19–related hospitalization (indication for hospitalization or hospitalization) or death at 28 days, occurred in 11.16% of the active group and 13.69% of the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.08; P = .166)

Secondary outcomes showed similar positive trends, but none were significant. These included: death or still hospitalized at 28 days (HR, 0.74), major events (MI, stroke, death; HR, 0.38), and total mortality (HR, 0.52).

In terms of safety, there was no significant difference in total adverse events between the two groups (16.5% in the active group vs. 14.8% in the placebo group). The most common adverse effects were constipation (2.7%), diarrhea (7.2%), and nausea (4%), but these were not significantly different from placebo. There were, however, more discontinuations in the active group (7% vs. 4%).

Dr. Diaz pointed out that the PREPARE-IT 2 trial was started in May 2020, when there wasn’t much known about the COVID-19 condition, and there were no vaccines or treatments, so hospitalization rates were high.

“We were hoping to see a 25%-30% reduction in hospitalizations with icosapent ethyl, and the trial was powered for that sort of reduction, but today we know we can expect a more modest reduction of about 15%,” Dr. Diaz concluded. “But to show that, we need a much larger trial with 8,000 or 9,000 patients, and that will be much more difficult to conduct.”

The PREPARE-IT 2 study was funded by Amarin. Dr. Diaz has received grants from Dalcor, Amarin, PHRI, and Lepetit.

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

A high dose of the purified form of eicosapentaenoic acid, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), failed to significantly reduce hospitalizations or death in patients infected with COVID-19 in the PREPARE-IT 2 study.

The study did, however, show a favorable trend, with a 16% reduction in the primary endpoint of death or an indication for hospitalization. All secondary endpoints were also numerically reduced, but none reached statistical significance.

The product was also well tolerated over the 28 days of the study period, even though a new high-loading dose was used, with no increase in atrial fibrillation or bleeding or other adverse events versus placebo, although there was a slightly higher rate of discontinuation.

The trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions on Nov. 15 by Rafael Díaz, MD, director of Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica in Rosario, Argentina.

“Larger, randomized trials powered for a relative risk reduction of around 15% with icosapent ethyl are needed to establish whether or not this product may have a role in the management of COVID-positive outpatients,” Dr. Diaz concluded.
 

‘Intriguing signals’

Commenting on the study, Manesh Patel, MD, chief of the division of cardiology and codirector of the Heart Center at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and chair of the Scientific Sessions scientific program, said that: “Certainly there are some intriguing signals.”

“I think the trend is valuable, but do we need a larger trial to confirm a benefit? I will leave that to the clinical community to decide,” Dr. Patel added. “But it is hard to power a trial to get that answer, and the world of COVID has changed since this trial started with vaccines now available and new therapeutics coming. So, there’s going to be a competing landscape.”

Discussing the trial at an AHA news briefing, Erin Michos, MD, associate professor of medicine within the division of cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said: “Results showed that everything trended in the right direction, but did not reach statistical significance largely because there were fewer events than anticipated. COVID hospitalizations are going down because of the broad adoption of vaccines, which meant that this study didn’t quite meet its endpoint.”

But, she added: “Reassuringly, even with the higher loading dose, there was no increased risk of [atrial fibrillation] when used for just 28 days, and no increased risk in bleeding, so there was very good safety.”

“We need a larger trial to really definitely show whether icosapent ethyl can or cannot help COVID-positive outpatients, but I think a better prevention strategy would be the broad adoption of vaccinations globally,” Dr. Michos concluded.
 

‘A pretty big ask’

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, AHA president and designated discussant at the late-breaking science session, congratulated the investigators on conducting “a very nice pragmatic trial in the midst of the COVID pandemic.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones concluded that the broad range of potentially beneficial actions of icosapent ethyl – including antitriglyceride, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and antithrombotic effects – leads to the possibility of it helping in COVID, but he added that “this is a pretty big ask for a fish oil supplement given short term.”

Presenting the study, Dr. Diaz noted that there are limited options for the outpatient treatment of patients with COVID-19 infection, and it is believed that inflammation plays a major role in worsening the severity of the infection.

He pointed out that previous data support a potential role of omega-3 fatty acids in reducing inflammation and infection, and that icosapent ethyl has shown a reduction in major cardiovascular events in the REDUCE-IT trial, with the mechanism thought to involve anti-inflammatory effects.

In the first trial to investigate the role of icosapent ethyl in COVID-19, PREPARE-IT, the product did not prevent uninfected individuals at risk from COVID from becoming infected with the virus, but there was no increase in side effects versus placebo with use over a 60-day period.

A small study last year in 100 COVID-positive patients showed icosapent ethyl reduced C-reactive protein, an inflammatory marker, and also improved symptoms.

PREPARE-IT 2, a pragmatic web-based trial, was conducted to investigate whether icosapent ethyl in nonhospitalized patients with a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 could reduce hospitalization rates and complications.

The trial enrolled 2,052 patients (mean age, 50 years), of whom 1,010 were allocated to the active group and 1,042 to the placebo group. Inclusion criteria included individuals aged 40 years or older with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis and no more than 7 days from the onset of symptoms and without a clear indication for hospitalization.

Patients who were allocated to the active arm received icosapent ethyl at a dose of 8 g (four capsules every 12 hours, morning and evening) for the first 3 days, followed by 4 g (two capsules every 12 hours) thereafter (days 4-28).

The primary outcome, COVID-19–related hospitalization (indication for hospitalization or hospitalization) or death at 28 days, occurred in 11.16% of the active group and 13.69% of the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.08; P = .166)

Secondary outcomes showed similar positive trends, but none were significant. These included: death or still hospitalized at 28 days (HR, 0.74), major events (MI, stroke, death; HR, 0.38), and total mortality (HR, 0.52).

In terms of safety, there was no significant difference in total adverse events between the two groups (16.5% in the active group vs. 14.8% in the placebo group). The most common adverse effects were constipation (2.7%), diarrhea (7.2%), and nausea (4%), but these were not significantly different from placebo. There were, however, more discontinuations in the active group (7% vs. 4%).

Dr. Diaz pointed out that the PREPARE-IT 2 trial was started in May 2020, when there wasn’t much known about the COVID-19 condition, and there were no vaccines or treatments, so hospitalization rates were high.

“We were hoping to see a 25%-30% reduction in hospitalizations with icosapent ethyl, and the trial was powered for that sort of reduction, but today we know we can expect a more modest reduction of about 15%,” Dr. Diaz concluded. “But to show that, we need a much larger trial with 8,000 or 9,000 patients, and that will be much more difficult to conduct.”

The PREPARE-IT 2 study was funded by Amarin. Dr. Diaz has received grants from Dalcor, Amarin, PHRI, and Lepetit.

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

A high dose of the purified form of eicosapentaenoic acid, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), failed to significantly reduce hospitalizations or death in patients infected with COVID-19 in the PREPARE-IT 2 study.

The study did, however, show a favorable trend, with a 16% reduction in the primary endpoint of death or an indication for hospitalization. All secondary endpoints were also numerically reduced, but none reached statistical significance.

The product was also well tolerated over the 28 days of the study period, even though a new high-loading dose was used, with no increase in atrial fibrillation or bleeding or other adverse events versus placebo, although there was a slightly higher rate of discontinuation.

The trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions on Nov. 15 by Rafael Díaz, MD, director of Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica in Rosario, Argentina.

“Larger, randomized trials powered for a relative risk reduction of around 15% with icosapent ethyl are needed to establish whether or not this product may have a role in the management of COVID-positive outpatients,” Dr. Diaz concluded.
 

‘Intriguing signals’

Commenting on the study, Manesh Patel, MD, chief of the division of cardiology and codirector of the Heart Center at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and chair of the Scientific Sessions scientific program, said that: “Certainly there are some intriguing signals.”

“I think the trend is valuable, but do we need a larger trial to confirm a benefit? I will leave that to the clinical community to decide,” Dr. Patel added. “But it is hard to power a trial to get that answer, and the world of COVID has changed since this trial started with vaccines now available and new therapeutics coming. So, there’s going to be a competing landscape.”

Discussing the trial at an AHA news briefing, Erin Michos, MD, associate professor of medicine within the division of cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said: “Results showed that everything trended in the right direction, but did not reach statistical significance largely because there were fewer events than anticipated. COVID hospitalizations are going down because of the broad adoption of vaccines, which meant that this study didn’t quite meet its endpoint.”

But, she added: “Reassuringly, even with the higher loading dose, there was no increased risk of [atrial fibrillation] when used for just 28 days, and no increased risk in bleeding, so there was very good safety.”

“We need a larger trial to really definitely show whether icosapent ethyl can or cannot help COVID-positive outpatients, but I think a better prevention strategy would be the broad adoption of vaccinations globally,” Dr. Michos concluded.
 

‘A pretty big ask’

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, AHA president and designated discussant at the late-breaking science session, congratulated the investigators on conducting “a very nice pragmatic trial in the midst of the COVID pandemic.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones concluded that the broad range of potentially beneficial actions of icosapent ethyl – including antitriglyceride, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and antithrombotic effects – leads to the possibility of it helping in COVID, but he added that “this is a pretty big ask for a fish oil supplement given short term.”

Presenting the study, Dr. Diaz noted that there are limited options for the outpatient treatment of patients with COVID-19 infection, and it is believed that inflammation plays a major role in worsening the severity of the infection.

He pointed out that previous data support a potential role of omega-3 fatty acids in reducing inflammation and infection, and that icosapent ethyl has shown a reduction in major cardiovascular events in the REDUCE-IT trial, with the mechanism thought to involve anti-inflammatory effects.

In the first trial to investigate the role of icosapent ethyl in COVID-19, PREPARE-IT, the product did not prevent uninfected individuals at risk from COVID from becoming infected with the virus, but there was no increase in side effects versus placebo with use over a 60-day period.

A small study last year in 100 COVID-positive patients showed icosapent ethyl reduced C-reactive protein, an inflammatory marker, and also improved symptoms.

PREPARE-IT 2, a pragmatic web-based trial, was conducted to investigate whether icosapent ethyl in nonhospitalized patients with a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 could reduce hospitalization rates and complications.

The trial enrolled 2,052 patients (mean age, 50 years), of whom 1,010 were allocated to the active group and 1,042 to the placebo group. Inclusion criteria included individuals aged 40 years or older with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis and no more than 7 days from the onset of symptoms and without a clear indication for hospitalization.

Patients who were allocated to the active arm received icosapent ethyl at a dose of 8 g (four capsules every 12 hours, morning and evening) for the first 3 days, followed by 4 g (two capsules every 12 hours) thereafter (days 4-28).

The primary outcome, COVID-19–related hospitalization (indication for hospitalization or hospitalization) or death at 28 days, occurred in 11.16% of the active group and 13.69% of the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.08; P = .166)

Secondary outcomes showed similar positive trends, but none were significant. These included: death or still hospitalized at 28 days (HR, 0.74), major events (MI, stroke, death; HR, 0.38), and total mortality (HR, 0.52).

In terms of safety, there was no significant difference in total adverse events between the two groups (16.5% in the active group vs. 14.8% in the placebo group). The most common adverse effects were constipation (2.7%), diarrhea (7.2%), and nausea (4%), but these were not significantly different from placebo. There were, however, more discontinuations in the active group (7% vs. 4%).

Dr. Diaz pointed out that the PREPARE-IT 2 trial was started in May 2020, when there wasn’t much known about the COVID-19 condition, and there were no vaccines or treatments, so hospitalization rates were high.

“We were hoping to see a 25%-30% reduction in hospitalizations with icosapent ethyl, and the trial was powered for that sort of reduction, but today we know we can expect a more modest reduction of about 15%,” Dr. Diaz concluded. “But to show that, we need a much larger trial with 8,000 or 9,000 patients, and that will be much more difficult to conduct.”

The PREPARE-IT 2 study was funded by Amarin. Dr. Diaz has received grants from Dalcor, Amarin, PHRI, and Lepetit.

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

Insufficient HIV-related nursing education is a major barrier to implementing HIV screening efforts in emergency departments (EDs), according to a national survey of ED nurses. Nearly 43% of respondents said they had received “little” or “very little” HIV education as part of their professional development and practice.

This lack of continuing HIV education “often translated into attitudes that did not support the policy” of routine HIV screening in EDs, lead author Candace Elam, DNP, a family nurse practitioner at the Institute of Family Health in the Bronx, New York City, told this news organization. “But more than individual attitudes, what came out most clearly in the research was that organizational support for HIV screening in EDs was the one factor that could make or break whether an emergency nurse performs HIV screening,” she said. This includes working routine HIV screening into ED workflows and providing resources to streamline screening and testing efforts.

In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidance recommending routine HIV screening in all healthcare settings, including urgent care and EDs. Elam, who conducted the research as a student at Rutgers University School of Nursing in New Brunswick, N.J., noticed during her time as an ED nurse that, while her department had a policy supporting routine HIV screening, the practice was not consistent across all nursing staff. To find out how HIV screening varied nationally, Elam ran a national survey from Oct. through Dec. 2020, recruiting participants both by email outreach and Facebook.

In the 30- to 45-minute survey, respondents reported:

• Demographic information
• Knowledge of the CDC HIV screening recommendations
• Workplace HIV screening policy
• Self-reported performance of HIV screening
• Beliefs and attitudes pertaining to HIV screening

Overall, 371 individuals from 43 states filled out at least some part of the survey, and 171 individuals completed it. Of the 251 individuals who answered whether their EDs routinely conducted HIV screening, 76.9% responded affirmatively. Overall, 28.5% of respondents thought HIV screening was “not important” or “not at all important.” Nearly half – 47.6% – reported never offering HIV testing to all eligible patients regardless of risk factors, and only 14.3% reported offering testing all of the time. Only 25% of participants said they received “adequate” or “a lot” of HIV-related nursing education, and 42.9% reported “little” or “very little” education.

“For the most part, those of us working in hospitals, all the education that we get about HIV took place in school,” Elam said. “So, if you went to school in the early 2000s or in the 1990s, you don’t know much else.” Elam noted that she keeps informed on HIV research issues because it is an area of interest, but the hospital she had worked at did not contribute much to her knowledge.

Elam also found that in practice there were several barriers to performing screening, such as lack of availability of a dedicated HIV educator, tester, or counselors; not knowing where to refer patients who had a positive HIV test result; and insufficient time to address positive HIV test results in ED practice.

“A lot of these things are outside an individual nurse’s control,” said Elam, and can result in missing patients who would benefit from care. Lisa Leimer, RN, a nurse at Primary Health Care in Des Moines, works with patients after they have been diagnosed with HIV, but noted that many of her patients could have been identified earlier. “Once we get someone, you look back at medical records and you see that they have been in and out of the hospital,” she said. “There’s been multiple encounters,” she said.

Prioritizing HIV screening in all healthcare settings and including HIV education for all medical professionals – not just nurses – could help in the continuing battle against HIV. “So much has changed in the world of HIV,” she said. “We’re trying to end the epidemic, and it could happen if we identified, diagnosed, and treated the people that are living with it.”

Elam and Leimer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Insufficient HIV-related nursing education is a major barrier to implementing HIV screening efforts in emergency departments (EDs), according to a national survey of ED nurses. Nearly 43% of respondents said they had received “little” or “very little” HIV education as part of their professional development and practice.

This lack of continuing HIV education “often translated into attitudes that did not support the policy” of routine HIV screening in EDs, lead author Candace Elam, DNP, a family nurse practitioner at the Institute of Family Health in the Bronx, New York City, told this news organization. “But more than individual attitudes, what came out most clearly in the research was that organizational support for HIV screening in EDs was the one factor that could make or break whether an emergency nurse performs HIV screening,” she said. This includes working routine HIV screening into ED workflows and providing resources to streamline screening and testing efforts.

In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidance recommending routine HIV screening in all healthcare settings, including urgent care and EDs. Elam, who conducted the research as a student at Rutgers University School of Nursing in New Brunswick, N.J., noticed during her time as an ED nurse that, while her department had a policy supporting routine HIV screening, the practice was not consistent across all nursing staff. To find out how HIV screening varied nationally, Elam ran a national survey from Oct. through Dec. 2020, recruiting participants both by email outreach and Facebook.

In the 30- to 45-minute survey, respondents reported:

• Demographic information
• Knowledge of the CDC HIV screening recommendations
• Workplace HIV screening policy
• Self-reported performance of HIV screening
• Beliefs and attitudes pertaining to HIV screening

Overall, 371 individuals from 43 states filled out at least some part of the survey, and 171 individuals completed it. Of the 251 individuals who answered whether their EDs routinely conducted HIV screening, 76.9% responded affirmatively. Overall, 28.5% of respondents thought HIV screening was “not important” or “not at all important.” Nearly half – 47.6% – reported never offering HIV testing to all eligible patients regardless of risk factors, and only 14.3% reported offering testing all of the time. Only 25% of participants said they received “adequate” or “a lot” of HIV-related nursing education, and 42.9% reported “little” or “very little” education.

“For the most part, those of us working in hospitals, all the education that we get about HIV took place in school,” Elam said. “So, if you went to school in the early 2000s or in the 1990s, you don’t know much else.” Elam noted that she keeps informed on HIV research issues because it is an area of interest, but the hospital she had worked at did not contribute much to her knowledge.

Elam also found that in practice there were several barriers to performing screening, such as lack of availability of a dedicated HIV educator, tester, or counselors; not knowing where to refer patients who had a positive HIV test result; and insufficient time to address positive HIV test results in ED practice.

“A lot of these things are outside an individual nurse’s control,” said Elam, and can result in missing patients who would benefit from care. Lisa Leimer, RN, a nurse at Primary Health Care in Des Moines, works with patients after they have been diagnosed with HIV, but noted that many of her patients could have been identified earlier. “Once we get someone, you look back at medical records and you see that they have been in and out of the hospital,” she said. “There’s been multiple encounters,” she said.

Prioritizing HIV screening in all healthcare settings and including HIV education for all medical professionals – not just nurses – could help in the continuing battle against HIV. “So much has changed in the world of HIV,” she said. “We’re trying to end the epidemic, and it could happen if we identified, diagnosed, and treated the people that are living with it.”

Elam and Leimer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Insufficient HIV-related nursing education is a major barrier to implementing HIV screening efforts in emergency departments (EDs), according to a national survey of ED nurses. Nearly 43% of respondents said they had received “little” or “very little” HIV education as part of their professional development and practice.

This lack of continuing HIV education “often translated into attitudes that did not support the policy” of routine HIV screening in EDs, lead author Candace Elam, DNP, a family nurse practitioner at the Institute of Family Health in the Bronx, New York City, told this news organization. “But more than individual attitudes, what came out most clearly in the research was that organizational support for HIV screening in EDs was the one factor that could make or break whether an emergency nurse performs HIV screening,” she said. This includes working routine HIV screening into ED workflows and providing resources to streamline screening and testing efforts.

In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidance recommending routine HIV screening in all healthcare settings, including urgent care and EDs. Elam, who conducted the research as a student at Rutgers University School of Nursing in New Brunswick, N.J., noticed during her time as an ED nurse that, while her department had a policy supporting routine HIV screening, the practice was not consistent across all nursing staff. To find out how HIV screening varied nationally, Elam ran a national survey from Oct. through Dec. 2020, recruiting participants both by email outreach and Facebook.

In the 30- to 45-minute survey, respondents reported:

• Demographic information
• Knowledge of the CDC HIV screening recommendations
• Workplace HIV screening policy
• Self-reported performance of HIV screening
• Beliefs and attitudes pertaining to HIV screening

Overall, 371 individuals from 43 states filled out at least some part of the survey, and 171 individuals completed it. Of the 251 individuals who answered whether their EDs routinely conducted HIV screening, 76.9% responded affirmatively. Overall, 28.5% of respondents thought HIV screening was “not important” or “not at all important.” Nearly half – 47.6% – reported never offering HIV testing to all eligible patients regardless of risk factors, and only 14.3% reported offering testing all of the time. Only 25% of participants said they received “adequate” or “a lot” of HIV-related nursing education, and 42.9% reported “little” or “very little” education.

“For the most part, those of us working in hospitals, all the education that we get about HIV took place in school,” Elam said. “So, if you went to school in the early 2000s or in the 1990s, you don’t know much else.” Elam noted that she keeps informed on HIV research issues because it is an area of interest, but the hospital she had worked at did not contribute much to her knowledge.

Elam also found that in practice there were several barriers to performing screening, such as lack of availability of a dedicated HIV educator, tester, or counselors; not knowing where to refer patients who had a positive HIV test result; and insufficient time to address positive HIV test results in ED practice.

“A lot of these things are outside an individual nurse’s control,” said Elam, and can result in missing patients who would benefit from care. Lisa Leimer, RN, a nurse at Primary Health Care in Des Moines, works with patients after they have been diagnosed with HIV, but noted that many of her patients could have been identified earlier. “Once we get someone, you look back at medical records and you see that they have been in and out of the hospital,” she said. “There’s been multiple encounters,” she said.

Prioritizing HIV screening in all healthcare settings and including HIV education for all medical professionals – not just nurses – could help in the continuing battle against HIV. “So much has changed in the world of HIV,” she said. “We’re trying to end the epidemic, and it could happen if we identified, diagnosed, and treated the people that are living with it.”

Elam and Leimer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When provided at the bedside of patients hospitalized for heart failure, an electronic health record (EHR) alert with prognostic information did not improve outcomes or appear to have any impact on what treatments were offered.

There was no signal that the EHR prognostic alerts, which identified the 12-month risk of mortality, had any impact on any of a variety of clinical-decision-making metrics or on any of the primary or secondary outcomes, according to Tariq Ahmad, MD, who reported results of the randomized REVEAL-HF trial, presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“These results call into question the hypothesis that accurate prognostic information alone will lead to better clinical decision-making,” said Dr. Ahmad, medical director of the Heart Transplant and Mechanical Circulatory Support Program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and principal investigator of REVEAL-HF.

He acknowledged that the possibility that many clinicians pay little or no attention to EHR alert might have played a role in the negative results.

At four participating Yale-affiliated clinical centers, all patients hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomized as long as they were over the age of 18, had an N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level above 500 pg/mL, and had been placed on IV diuretics within 24 hours of admission. In the experimental arm, the provider at the time of entering orders received an EHR alert with an estimate of the risk of all-cause mortality at 12 months. There was no such alert for patients managed in the control arm.
 

Twelve-month mortality estimates calculated

The all-cause mortality risk was calculated on a sizeable list of variables that included laboratory results, such as cell counts, and patient characteristics, such as weight and age. The risk estimate was displayed along with a five-category color-coded bar to provide context for the risk in the spectrum of very low, low, medium, high, and very high likelihood of death within 12 months.

The 1,590 patients randomized to the experimental arm and the 1,534 patients randomized to the usual care arm did not differ significantly in any baseline characteristics. The median age was about 77 years, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 55%. About 29% had an LVEF below 40%, about 40% had chronic kidney disease, and about 30% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

The composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization within 12 months was reached by 38.9% and 39.3% (P = 0.82) of the intervention and control arms, respectively. The components of the primary outcome were also nearly identical, as was inpatient mortality (8.4% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.72).

There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes, which included rates of 30-day rehospitalizations, discharge on guideline-recommended heart failure therapies, implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator, use of a left ventricular assist device, or heart transplant.

The proportion of patients referred for palliative care was almost identical in the very low, low, and medium risk groups. In the high (23.4 vs. 15.6; P = 0.19) and very high (50% vs. 40%; P = 0.92) groups, there were numerically more referrals in the group randomized to usual care, but these rates did not reach significance.
 

No differences seen in discharge meds

There was essentially no difference between groups in the rates at which patients were discharged on beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or mineralocorticoid antagonists.

When prespecified subgroups, such as those older than age 75 years relative to those younger, males relative to females, Black versus White participants, patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) relative to preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and intensive care unit versus non-ICU patients, were compared, there were no indications that the EHR alert improved outcomes.

Invited discussant Harriette G. C. Van Spall, MD, director of digital health and virtual care and associate professor of cardiology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., did not dispute the conclusions, but she pointed out several potential explanations for the neutral result.

Not least, nearly 75% of those enrolled had low risk or very low risk for adverse outcomes within 1 year, so the opportunity to show a reduction in events, including all-cause mortality, was limited.

“This was largely a HFpEF population, for which there are no treatments for which a risk score would change therapy,” she said.
 

EHR alert efficacy questioned

There is considerable evidence that risk prediction tools “are common but underutilized in HF,” Dr. Van Spall added. She noted that many clinicians find alerts in the EHR more annoying than informative, and it remains unknown what proportion of clinicians pay attention to them, particularly in the absence of evidence that they lead to meaningful improvements in care over their own clinical judgment.

Dr. Ahmad agreed.

“I think that we need to study these alerts in a clinical trial format,” he said. Acknowledging that alerts have been poorly received by many clinicians, Dr. Ahmad said that trials to validate the impact of any specific alert are needed to improve their credibility. If a positive impact cannot be shown, he said the alert should be eliminated, leaving only the alerts with proven clinical value.

Dr. Ahmad reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Relypsa. Dr. Van Spall reports no potential conflicts of interest.

When provided at the bedside of patients hospitalized for heart failure, an electronic health record (EHR) alert with prognostic information did not improve outcomes or appear to have any impact on what treatments were offered.

There was no signal that the EHR prognostic alerts, which identified the 12-month risk of mortality, had any impact on any of a variety of clinical-decision-making metrics or on any of the primary or secondary outcomes, according to Tariq Ahmad, MD, who reported results of the randomized REVEAL-HF trial, presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“These results call into question the hypothesis that accurate prognostic information alone will lead to better clinical decision-making,” said Dr. Ahmad, medical director of the Heart Transplant and Mechanical Circulatory Support Program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and principal investigator of REVEAL-HF.

He acknowledged that the possibility that many clinicians pay little or no attention to EHR alert might have played a role in the negative results.

At four participating Yale-affiliated clinical centers, all patients hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomized as long as they were over the age of 18, had an N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level above 500 pg/mL, and had been placed on IV diuretics within 24 hours of admission. In the experimental arm, the provider at the time of entering orders received an EHR alert with an estimate of the risk of all-cause mortality at 12 months. There was no such alert for patients managed in the control arm.
 

Twelve-month mortality estimates calculated

The all-cause mortality risk was calculated on a sizeable list of variables that included laboratory results, such as cell counts, and patient characteristics, such as weight and age. The risk estimate was displayed along with a five-category color-coded bar to provide context for the risk in the spectrum of very low, low, medium, high, and very high likelihood of death within 12 months.

The 1,590 patients randomized to the experimental arm and the 1,534 patients randomized to the usual care arm did not differ significantly in any baseline characteristics. The median age was about 77 years, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 55%. About 29% had an LVEF below 40%, about 40% had chronic kidney disease, and about 30% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

The composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization within 12 months was reached by 38.9% and 39.3% (P = 0.82) of the intervention and control arms, respectively. The components of the primary outcome were also nearly identical, as was inpatient mortality (8.4% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.72).

There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes, which included rates of 30-day rehospitalizations, discharge on guideline-recommended heart failure therapies, implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator, use of a left ventricular assist device, or heart transplant.

The proportion of patients referred for palliative care was almost identical in the very low, low, and medium risk groups. In the high (23.4 vs. 15.6; P = 0.19) and very high (50% vs. 40%; P = 0.92) groups, there were numerically more referrals in the group randomized to usual care, but these rates did not reach significance.
 

No differences seen in discharge meds

There was essentially no difference between groups in the rates at which patients were discharged on beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or mineralocorticoid antagonists.

When prespecified subgroups, such as those older than age 75 years relative to those younger, males relative to females, Black versus White participants, patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) relative to preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and intensive care unit versus non-ICU patients, were compared, there were no indications that the EHR alert improved outcomes.

Invited discussant Harriette G. C. Van Spall, MD, director of digital health and virtual care and associate professor of cardiology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., did not dispute the conclusions, but she pointed out several potential explanations for the neutral result.

Not least, nearly 75% of those enrolled had low risk or very low risk for adverse outcomes within 1 year, so the opportunity to show a reduction in events, including all-cause mortality, was limited.

“This was largely a HFpEF population, for which there are no treatments for which a risk score would change therapy,” she said.
 

EHR alert efficacy questioned

There is considerable evidence that risk prediction tools “are common but underutilized in HF,” Dr. Van Spall added. She noted that many clinicians find alerts in the EHR more annoying than informative, and it remains unknown what proportion of clinicians pay attention to them, particularly in the absence of evidence that they lead to meaningful improvements in care over their own clinical judgment.

Dr. Ahmad agreed.

“I think that we need to study these alerts in a clinical trial format,” he said. Acknowledging that alerts have been poorly received by many clinicians, Dr. Ahmad said that trials to validate the impact of any specific alert are needed to improve their credibility. If a positive impact cannot be shown, he said the alert should be eliminated, leaving only the alerts with proven clinical value.

Dr. Ahmad reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Relypsa. Dr. Van Spall reports no potential conflicts of interest.

When provided at the bedside of patients hospitalized for heart failure, an electronic health record (EHR) alert with prognostic information did not improve outcomes or appear to have any impact on what treatments were offered.

There was no signal that the EHR prognostic alerts, which identified the 12-month risk of mortality, had any impact on any of a variety of clinical-decision-making metrics or on any of the primary or secondary outcomes, according to Tariq Ahmad, MD, who reported results of the randomized REVEAL-HF trial, presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“These results call into question the hypothesis that accurate prognostic information alone will lead to better clinical decision-making,” said Dr. Ahmad, medical director of the Heart Transplant and Mechanical Circulatory Support Program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and principal investigator of REVEAL-HF.

He acknowledged that the possibility that many clinicians pay little or no attention to EHR alert might have played a role in the negative results.

At four participating Yale-affiliated clinical centers, all patients hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomized as long as they were over the age of 18, had an N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level above 500 pg/mL, and had been placed on IV diuretics within 24 hours of admission. In the experimental arm, the provider at the time of entering orders received an EHR alert with an estimate of the risk of all-cause mortality at 12 months. There was no such alert for patients managed in the control arm.
 

Twelve-month mortality estimates calculated

The all-cause mortality risk was calculated on a sizeable list of variables that included laboratory results, such as cell counts, and patient characteristics, such as weight and age. The risk estimate was displayed along with a five-category color-coded bar to provide context for the risk in the spectrum of very low, low, medium, high, and very high likelihood of death within 12 months.

The 1,590 patients randomized to the experimental arm and the 1,534 patients randomized to the usual care arm did not differ significantly in any baseline characteristics. The median age was about 77 years, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 55%. About 29% had an LVEF below 40%, about 40% had chronic kidney disease, and about 30% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

The composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization within 12 months was reached by 38.9% and 39.3% (P = 0.82) of the intervention and control arms, respectively. The components of the primary outcome were also nearly identical, as was inpatient mortality (8.4% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.72).

There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes, which included rates of 30-day rehospitalizations, discharge on guideline-recommended heart failure therapies, implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator, use of a left ventricular assist device, or heart transplant.

The proportion of patients referred for palliative care was almost identical in the very low, low, and medium risk groups. In the high (23.4 vs. 15.6; P = 0.19) and very high (50% vs. 40%; P = 0.92) groups, there were numerically more referrals in the group randomized to usual care, but these rates did not reach significance.
 

No differences seen in discharge meds

There was essentially no difference between groups in the rates at which patients were discharged on beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or mineralocorticoid antagonists.

When prespecified subgroups, such as those older than age 75 years relative to those younger, males relative to females, Black versus White participants, patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) relative to preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and intensive care unit versus non-ICU patients, were compared, there were no indications that the EHR alert improved outcomes.

Invited discussant Harriette G. C. Van Spall, MD, director of digital health and virtual care and associate professor of cardiology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., did not dispute the conclusions, but she pointed out several potential explanations for the neutral result.

Not least, nearly 75% of those enrolled had low risk or very low risk for adverse outcomes within 1 year, so the opportunity to show a reduction in events, including all-cause mortality, was limited.

“This was largely a HFpEF population, for which there are no treatments for which a risk score would change therapy,” she said.
 

EHR alert efficacy questioned

There is considerable evidence that risk prediction tools “are common but underutilized in HF,” Dr. Van Spall added. She noted that many clinicians find alerts in the EHR more annoying than informative, and it remains unknown what proportion of clinicians pay attention to them, particularly in the absence of evidence that they lead to meaningful improvements in care over their own clinical judgment.

Dr. Ahmad agreed.

“I think that we need to study these alerts in a clinical trial format,” he said. Acknowledging that alerts have been poorly received by many clinicians, Dr. Ahmad said that trials to validate the impact of any specific alert are needed to improve their credibility. If a positive impact cannot be shown, he said the alert should be eliminated, leaving only the alerts with proven clinical value.

Dr. Ahmad reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Relypsa. Dr. Van Spall reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Extended follow-up of the PRAGUE-17 trial suggests left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remains noninferior to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with regard to major cardiovascular and neurologic events in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation.

At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the annualized rate of the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), systemic embolism, cardiovascular death, clinically relevant bleeding, or significant procedure- or device-related complications – was 8.6% in patients who underwent LAAC and 11.9% in those managed with DOACs (P value for noninferiority = .006).

The study was not powered to assess the individual components, but most were similar between the LAAC and DOAC groups, including cardiovascular death (20 vs. 30 events) and all stroke/TIA (16 vs. 18 events).

Nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding was lower with LAAC (23 vs. 40 events; annualized rate, 3.4% vs. 5.9%; P = .039), said Pavel Osmancik, MD, PhD, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, both in Prague.

The data were presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando and sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and was published simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The results are generally in line with those reported in 2020 with an average follow-up of 20 months, when the annualized primary event rate was 11% with LAAC and 13% with DOACs, also known as novel OACs (NOACs).

The trial randomly assigned 415 patients to LAAC with the Amulet (Abbott Vascular) or Watchman/Watchman FLX devices (Boston Scientific) or to rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or preferably apixaban (96%). The modified intention-to-treat analysis included 201 patients in each group, with follow-up extending to 4.3 years in the LAAC group and 4.2 years in the DOAC group.

Dr. Osmancik said the trial enrolled a very-high-risk atrial fibrillation cohort, citing a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.7 in both groups and a HAS-BLED score of 3.0-3.1. More than half of the LAAC group (54.2%) and 47.3% of the DOAC group had a history of bleeding or bleeding predisposition.

During a discussion of the results, the panel questioned whether the continuing divergence of the primary event curves at 4 years was potentially related to the effect of noncompliance to the NOACs over time.

Dr. Osmancik replied: “We didn’t do any medication look among the patients, but I don’t think that the number of patients who stopped the NOAC treatment was too high because the rate of strokes was very similar to that in the NOAC trials.”

He reported that 26 patients in the DOAC group permanently stopped their DOAC during follow-up; 15 (58%) because of clinically relevant bleeding, and 13 crossed over to LAAC. Of the 13 patients, 12 cases were successful with dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 months.

In the LAAC group, 17 patients started a DOAC during follow-up. Of these, three (18%) initiated DOAC treatment because of device-related thrombus (DRT) on transesophageal echocardiography, three (18%) because of a peridevice leak (PDL), and five (29%) because of a stroke/TIA.

“Given the observed trend of significantly increased nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding in the NOAC arm, it is likely that late bleeding events will increasingly favor LAAC over time,” Faisal Merchant, MD, Emory University, Atlanta, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

NOACs, he noted, have important indications beyond prevention of left atrial appendage thrombi, including prevention of non-LAA sources of stroke/systemic embolism (SSE) and treatment of venous thromboembolism. “If significant numbers of patients treated with LAAC end up on anticoagulation in the long run, the benefits of LAAC are likely to be attenuated.”

Although PRAGUE-17 provides some insights into the longer-term indications for resuming anticoagulation in patients previously treated with LAAC, Dr. Merchant said the trial is a “real missed opportunity” in terms of understanding late device-associated risks. Unfortunately, two-thirds of the follow-up transesophageal echocardiograms were canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Although the incidence of late DRT and PDL isn’t known, the longer-term PRAGUE-17 data are helpful in demonstrating that rates of SSE remain similar in the LAAC and NOAC groups over time, without any obvious signal of late ischemic events in the LAAC group,” he wrote.

The editorialist also called attention to the “often overlooked” issue of aspirin adherence in long-term medical therapy. Although patients treated with LAAC typically remain on aspirin indefinitely, the percentage who discontinue long-term aspirin is not well described and is not reported in PRAGUE-17. In the AVERROES trial, comparing aspirin with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation, however, 20.5% of patients permanently discontinued aspirin at 2 years, compared with only 17.9% on apixaban.

“It is plausible that discontinuation of aspirin may contribute to late ischemic events in patients treated with LAAC, potentially by increasing the risk of late DRT or through other mechanisms,” Dr. Merchant wrote. “Adherence to, and the impact of, long-term antiplatelet therapy should be a focus of future LAAC studies.”

The study was funded by a research grant from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic. Dr. Osmancik reported occasional speaking honoraria from Bayer and Abbott. Dr. Merchant disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Extended follow-up of the PRAGUE-17 trial suggests left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remains noninferior to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with regard to major cardiovascular and neurologic events in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation.

At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the annualized rate of the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), systemic embolism, cardiovascular death, clinically relevant bleeding, or significant procedure- or device-related complications – was 8.6% in patients who underwent LAAC and 11.9% in those managed with DOACs (P value for noninferiority = .006).

The study was not powered to assess the individual components, but most were similar between the LAAC and DOAC groups, including cardiovascular death (20 vs. 30 events) and all stroke/TIA (16 vs. 18 events).

Nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding was lower with LAAC (23 vs. 40 events; annualized rate, 3.4% vs. 5.9%; P = .039), said Pavel Osmancik, MD, PhD, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, both in Prague.

The data were presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando and sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and was published simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The results are generally in line with those reported in 2020 with an average follow-up of 20 months, when the annualized primary event rate was 11% with LAAC and 13% with DOACs, also known as novel OACs (NOACs).

The trial randomly assigned 415 patients to LAAC with the Amulet (Abbott Vascular) or Watchman/Watchman FLX devices (Boston Scientific) or to rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or preferably apixaban (96%). The modified intention-to-treat analysis included 201 patients in each group, with follow-up extending to 4.3 years in the LAAC group and 4.2 years in the DOAC group.

Dr. Osmancik said the trial enrolled a very-high-risk atrial fibrillation cohort, citing a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.7 in both groups and a HAS-BLED score of 3.0-3.1. More than half of the LAAC group (54.2%) and 47.3% of the DOAC group had a history of bleeding or bleeding predisposition.

During a discussion of the results, the panel questioned whether the continuing divergence of the primary event curves at 4 years was potentially related to the effect of noncompliance to the NOACs over time.

Dr. Osmancik replied: “We didn’t do any medication look among the patients, but I don’t think that the number of patients who stopped the NOAC treatment was too high because the rate of strokes was very similar to that in the NOAC trials.”

He reported that 26 patients in the DOAC group permanently stopped their DOAC during follow-up; 15 (58%) because of clinically relevant bleeding, and 13 crossed over to LAAC. Of the 13 patients, 12 cases were successful with dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 months.

In the LAAC group, 17 patients started a DOAC during follow-up. Of these, three (18%) initiated DOAC treatment because of device-related thrombus (DRT) on transesophageal echocardiography, three (18%) because of a peridevice leak (PDL), and five (29%) because of a stroke/TIA.

“Given the observed trend of significantly increased nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding in the NOAC arm, it is likely that late bleeding events will increasingly favor LAAC over time,” Faisal Merchant, MD, Emory University, Atlanta, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

NOACs, he noted, have important indications beyond prevention of left atrial appendage thrombi, including prevention of non-LAA sources of stroke/systemic embolism (SSE) and treatment of venous thromboembolism. “If significant numbers of patients treated with LAAC end up on anticoagulation in the long run, the benefits of LAAC are likely to be attenuated.”

Although PRAGUE-17 provides some insights into the longer-term indications for resuming anticoagulation in patients previously treated with LAAC, Dr. Merchant said the trial is a “real missed opportunity” in terms of understanding late device-associated risks. Unfortunately, two-thirds of the follow-up transesophageal echocardiograms were canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Although the incidence of late DRT and PDL isn’t known, the longer-term PRAGUE-17 data are helpful in demonstrating that rates of SSE remain similar in the LAAC and NOAC groups over time, without any obvious signal of late ischemic events in the LAAC group,” he wrote.

The editorialist also called attention to the “often overlooked” issue of aspirin adherence in long-term medical therapy. Although patients treated with LAAC typically remain on aspirin indefinitely, the percentage who discontinue long-term aspirin is not well described and is not reported in PRAGUE-17. In the AVERROES trial, comparing aspirin with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation, however, 20.5% of patients permanently discontinued aspirin at 2 years, compared with only 17.9% on apixaban.

“It is plausible that discontinuation of aspirin may contribute to late ischemic events in patients treated with LAAC, potentially by increasing the risk of late DRT or through other mechanisms,” Dr. Merchant wrote. “Adherence to, and the impact of, long-term antiplatelet therapy should be a focus of future LAAC studies.”

The study was funded by a research grant from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic. Dr. Osmancik reported occasional speaking honoraria from Bayer and Abbott. Dr. Merchant disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Extended follow-up of the PRAGUE-17 trial suggests left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remains noninferior to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with regard to major cardiovascular and neurologic events in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation.

At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the annualized rate of the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), systemic embolism, cardiovascular death, clinically relevant bleeding, or significant procedure- or device-related complications – was 8.6% in patients who underwent LAAC and 11.9% in those managed with DOACs (P value for noninferiority = .006).

The study was not powered to assess the individual components, but most were similar between the LAAC and DOAC groups, including cardiovascular death (20 vs. 30 events) and all stroke/TIA (16 vs. 18 events).

Nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding was lower with LAAC (23 vs. 40 events; annualized rate, 3.4% vs. 5.9%; P = .039), said Pavel Osmancik, MD, PhD, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, both in Prague.

The data were presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando and sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and was published simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The results are generally in line with those reported in 2020 with an average follow-up of 20 months, when the annualized primary event rate was 11% with LAAC and 13% with DOACs, also known as novel OACs (NOACs).

The trial randomly assigned 415 patients to LAAC with the Amulet (Abbott Vascular) or Watchman/Watchman FLX devices (Boston Scientific) or to rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or preferably apixaban (96%). The modified intention-to-treat analysis included 201 patients in each group, with follow-up extending to 4.3 years in the LAAC group and 4.2 years in the DOAC group.

Dr. Osmancik said the trial enrolled a very-high-risk atrial fibrillation cohort, citing a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.7 in both groups and a HAS-BLED score of 3.0-3.1. More than half of the LAAC group (54.2%) and 47.3% of the DOAC group had a history of bleeding or bleeding predisposition.

During a discussion of the results, the panel questioned whether the continuing divergence of the primary event curves at 4 years was potentially related to the effect of noncompliance to the NOACs over time.

Dr. Osmancik replied: “We didn’t do any medication look among the patients, but I don’t think that the number of patients who stopped the NOAC treatment was too high because the rate of strokes was very similar to that in the NOAC trials.”

He reported that 26 patients in the DOAC group permanently stopped their DOAC during follow-up; 15 (58%) because of clinically relevant bleeding, and 13 crossed over to LAAC. Of the 13 patients, 12 cases were successful with dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 months.

In the LAAC group, 17 patients started a DOAC during follow-up. Of these, three (18%) initiated DOAC treatment because of device-related thrombus (DRT) on transesophageal echocardiography, three (18%) because of a peridevice leak (PDL), and five (29%) because of a stroke/TIA.

“Given the observed trend of significantly increased nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding in the NOAC arm, it is likely that late bleeding events will increasingly favor LAAC over time,” Faisal Merchant, MD, Emory University, Atlanta, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

NOACs, he noted, have important indications beyond prevention of left atrial appendage thrombi, including prevention of non-LAA sources of stroke/systemic embolism (SSE) and treatment of venous thromboembolism. “If significant numbers of patients treated with LAAC end up on anticoagulation in the long run, the benefits of LAAC are likely to be attenuated.”

Although PRAGUE-17 provides some insights into the longer-term indications for resuming anticoagulation in patients previously treated with LAAC, Dr. Merchant said the trial is a “real missed opportunity” in terms of understanding late device-associated risks. Unfortunately, two-thirds of the follow-up transesophageal echocardiograms were canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Although the incidence of late DRT and PDL isn’t known, the longer-term PRAGUE-17 data are helpful in demonstrating that rates of SSE remain similar in the LAAC and NOAC groups over time, without any obvious signal of late ischemic events in the LAAC group,” he wrote.

The editorialist also called attention to the “often overlooked” issue of aspirin adherence in long-term medical therapy. Although patients treated with LAAC typically remain on aspirin indefinitely, the percentage who discontinue long-term aspirin is not well described and is not reported in PRAGUE-17. In the AVERROES trial, comparing aspirin with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation, however, 20.5% of patients permanently discontinued aspirin at 2 years, compared with only 17.9% on apixaban.

“It is plausible that discontinuation of aspirin may contribute to late ischemic events in patients treated with LAAC, potentially by increasing the risk of late DRT or through other mechanisms,” Dr. Merchant wrote. “Adherence to, and the impact of, long-term antiplatelet therapy should be a focus of future LAAC studies.”

The study was funded by a research grant from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic. Dr. Osmancik reported occasional speaking honoraria from Bayer and Abbott. Dr. Merchant disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation who explored potential triggers of their arrhythmia, and used them to make lifestyle changes, went on to show a 40% decline in subjectively experienced bouts of AFib in a randomized trial with an unusual design.

American Heart Association

But the study didn’t provide evidence that the drop in self-reported AFib necessarily improved their quality of life, its primary endpoint. Nor was there any apparent relationship between potential triggers and AFib episodes detected less subjectively using a handheld electrocardiography monitor.

Although the study – called I-STOP-AFib – has limitations, its results jibe with alcohol intake’s increasingly appreciated status as a potential AFib trigger. It was alone among many possible triggers tested in showing a consistent association with self-reported AFib.

As a result, the study offers no support for such a link between the arrhythmia and caffeine intake, sleep deprivation, dehydration, exercise, or other conditions sometimes perceived as triggers, observed principal investigator Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, University of California, San Francisco, when presenting results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. He is also lead author on the study’s simultaneous publication in JAMA Cardiology.

The I-STOP-AFib trial was unusual in part for its virtual design, in which participants followed instructions and tracked AFib episodes – both perceived and detected by the handheld ECG device – through a smartphone application. It also featured an N-of-1 randomized comparisons of different weeks in which individuals were or were not exposed to their self-selected trigger.

Such patients following their own weekly personalized randomization were compared to an entirely separate randomized control arm of the trial, in which patients simply tracked any ECG-monitored and self-perceived AFib episodes.
 

Current use in patients

Although wearable and smartphone-based ECG recorders are increasingly popular for AFib screening, Dr. Marcus said the devices may be especially helpful for validating whether a person’s symptoms are actually caused by AFib.

“I have actually suggested to some of my patients that they run some of these experiments,” he said at a media briefing on I-STOP-AFib before his main presentation of the trial. The demonstration might help patients recognize that some perceived triggers actually do not induce AFib.

Allowing patients to determine on their own whether a substance indeed triggers their AFib “is an efficient use of these devices,” Dr. Marcus said. Such N-of-1 exploration of possible triggers “might help free patients up to enjoy substances – caffeine or coffee is one example – that they otherwise might not, and may help actually reassure them that certain exposures –like certain exercises, which can also be beneficial – might actually not be harmful.”

Dr. Marcus and the other authors on the report noted – as he did at the AHA sessions – that the study has several limitations, such as the subjectivity of self-reported AFib, dropouts from the trial that shrank the randomization arms, and a population that may not be very representative.

There is also the potential for detection bias in the group assigned to track their selected triggers, as Dr. Marcus and some observers have noted.

It follows that conscious avoidance of a potential AFib trigger might well lead to a reduction in AFib subjectively identified by symptoms, proposed David Conen, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But perhaps there would have been no reduction in AFib had it been objectively documented with the handheld ECG device, he said in an interview.

“If I were to redesign the study,” he said, “I think the primary endpoint should be confirmed atrial fibrillation, because we would have to show first that the specific trigger actually reduced objective AFib events before we then try to address the question whether reducing that trigger improves quality of life.”
 

Unrepresentative sample

The trial entered 446 overwhelmingly White and college-educated adults known to have symptomatic paroxysmal AFib who were “interested in testing a presumed AFib trigger they could readily introduce or withhold” and who owned a smartphone; the average age was 58 years, and 58% were men. The cohort was randomly assigned to the trigger-testing group or the control group, charged only with tracking their AFib.

Of the total, 320, or about 72%, completed the study; those who did not were mostly from the trigger-testing arm, leaving 136 in that group versus 184 patients in the control group.

Potential triggers that participants selected for tracking included, foremost, caffeine, alcohol, reduced sleep, and exercise, followed by lying on the left side, dehydration, large meals, and cold food or drink, the report noted.

Patients in the control group used the smartphone app and handheld ECG monitor (KardiaMobile, AliveCor) to document the duration and severity of AFib episodes daily and received data summary reports through the app weekly for 10 weeks. They then had the option to follow the trigger-testing protocol at least once.

Those in the trigger-testing group conducted their N-of-1 trials by exposing themselves to their chosen potential trigger during 3 separate weeks and avoiding the trigger during 3 other weeks, alternating each of the 6 weeks of trigger exposure or avoidance. They were instructed through the app to start the 6-week sequence with one or the other strategy randomly and to regularly track their AFib.

At the end of 6 weeks, each participant in the trigger-testing group had the opportunity to review their data for any potential trigger-AFib associations. They were then to use the next 4 weeks to enact lifestyle changes based on what they learned – as described in the report and on clinicaltrials.gov. They had the option of repeating the entire N-of-1 sequence at least one more time.

Participants in both the trigger-tracking and control arms were tested at baseline and at 10 weeks using the validated Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire.

AFEQT scores didn’t change significantly over the 10 weeks in either arm, nor were they significantly different in one arm, compared with the other.

On the other hand, patients in the trigger-tracking arm reported significantly fewer daily AFib episodes during the final 4-week period of lifestyle changes based on their N-of-1 trial results, compared to the monitoring-only control group’s final 4 weeks.

The adjusted relative risk in the trigger-tracking arm was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.83; P < .001), the difference driven by patients who selected alcohol, dehydration, or exercise for their trigger, Dr. Marcus reported.

Only alcohol intake emerged consistently as a significant predictor of risk for self-reported AFib episodes in a series of meta-analyses conducted using all of the individual N-of-1 trials that provided per-protocol data. The odds ratio was 1.77 (95% CI, 1.20-2.69).

I-STOP-AFib explored an important subject “that has been understudied,” Dr. Conen said. “The trial has some limitations that the authors address themselves, but hopefully it opens the path to future studies that can build upon this experience.”

Dr. Marcus reported receiving personal fees and equity interest from InCarda Therapeutics; personal fees from Johnson & Johnson; and grants from Baylis Medical, Medtronic, the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

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

People with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation who explored potential triggers of their arrhythmia, and used them to make lifestyle changes, went on to show a 40% decline in subjectively experienced bouts of AFib in a randomized trial with an unusual design.

American Heart Association

But the study didn’t provide evidence that the drop in self-reported AFib necessarily improved their quality of life, its primary endpoint. Nor was there any apparent relationship between potential triggers and AFib episodes detected less subjectively using a handheld electrocardiography monitor.

Although the study – called I-STOP-AFib – has limitations, its results jibe with alcohol intake’s increasingly appreciated status as a potential AFib trigger. It was alone among many possible triggers tested in showing a consistent association with self-reported AFib.

As a result, the study offers no support for such a link between the arrhythmia and caffeine intake, sleep deprivation, dehydration, exercise, or other conditions sometimes perceived as triggers, observed principal investigator Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, University of California, San Francisco, when presenting results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. He is also lead author on the study’s simultaneous publication in JAMA Cardiology.

The I-STOP-AFib trial was unusual in part for its virtual design, in which participants followed instructions and tracked AFib episodes – both perceived and detected by the handheld ECG device – through a smartphone application. It also featured an N-of-1 randomized comparisons of different weeks in which individuals were or were not exposed to their self-selected trigger.

Such patients following their own weekly personalized randomization were compared to an entirely separate randomized control arm of the trial, in which patients simply tracked any ECG-monitored and self-perceived AFib episodes.
 

Current use in patients

Although wearable and smartphone-based ECG recorders are increasingly popular for AFib screening, Dr. Marcus said the devices may be especially helpful for validating whether a person’s symptoms are actually caused by AFib.

“I have actually suggested to some of my patients that they run some of these experiments,” he said at a media briefing on I-STOP-AFib before his main presentation of the trial. The demonstration might help patients recognize that some perceived triggers actually do not induce AFib.

Allowing patients to determine on their own whether a substance indeed triggers their AFib “is an efficient use of these devices,” Dr. Marcus said. Such N-of-1 exploration of possible triggers “might help free patients up to enjoy substances – caffeine or coffee is one example – that they otherwise might not, and may help actually reassure them that certain exposures –like certain exercises, which can also be beneficial – might actually not be harmful.”

Dr. Marcus and the other authors on the report noted – as he did at the AHA sessions – that the study has several limitations, such as the subjectivity of self-reported AFib, dropouts from the trial that shrank the randomization arms, and a population that may not be very representative.

There is also the potential for detection bias in the group assigned to track their selected triggers, as Dr. Marcus and some observers have noted.

It follows that conscious avoidance of a potential AFib trigger might well lead to a reduction in AFib subjectively identified by symptoms, proposed David Conen, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But perhaps there would have been no reduction in AFib had it been objectively documented with the handheld ECG device, he said in an interview.

“If I were to redesign the study,” he said, “I think the primary endpoint should be confirmed atrial fibrillation, because we would have to show first that the specific trigger actually reduced objective AFib events before we then try to address the question whether reducing that trigger improves quality of life.”
 

Unrepresentative sample

The trial entered 446 overwhelmingly White and college-educated adults known to have symptomatic paroxysmal AFib who were “interested in testing a presumed AFib trigger they could readily introduce or withhold” and who owned a smartphone; the average age was 58 years, and 58% were men. The cohort was randomly assigned to the trigger-testing group or the control group, charged only with tracking their AFib.

Of the total, 320, or about 72%, completed the study; those who did not were mostly from the trigger-testing arm, leaving 136 in that group versus 184 patients in the control group.

Potential triggers that participants selected for tracking included, foremost, caffeine, alcohol, reduced sleep, and exercise, followed by lying on the left side, dehydration, large meals, and cold food or drink, the report noted.

Patients in the control group used the smartphone app and handheld ECG monitor (KardiaMobile, AliveCor) to document the duration and severity of AFib episodes daily and received data summary reports through the app weekly for 10 weeks. They then had the option to follow the trigger-testing protocol at least once.

Those in the trigger-testing group conducted their N-of-1 trials by exposing themselves to their chosen potential trigger during 3 separate weeks and avoiding the trigger during 3 other weeks, alternating each of the 6 weeks of trigger exposure or avoidance. They were instructed through the app to start the 6-week sequence with one or the other strategy randomly and to regularly track their AFib.

At the end of 6 weeks, each participant in the trigger-testing group had the opportunity to review their data for any potential trigger-AFib associations. They were then to use the next 4 weeks to enact lifestyle changes based on what they learned – as described in the report and on clinicaltrials.gov. They had the option of repeating the entire N-of-1 sequence at least one more time.

Participants in both the trigger-tracking and control arms were tested at baseline and at 10 weeks using the validated Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire.

AFEQT scores didn’t change significantly over the 10 weeks in either arm, nor were they significantly different in one arm, compared with the other.

On the other hand, patients in the trigger-tracking arm reported significantly fewer daily AFib episodes during the final 4-week period of lifestyle changes based on their N-of-1 trial results, compared to the monitoring-only control group’s final 4 weeks.

The adjusted relative risk in the trigger-tracking arm was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.83; P < .001), the difference driven by patients who selected alcohol, dehydration, or exercise for their trigger, Dr. Marcus reported.

Only alcohol intake emerged consistently as a significant predictor of risk for self-reported AFib episodes in a series of meta-analyses conducted using all of the individual N-of-1 trials that provided per-protocol data. The odds ratio was 1.77 (95% CI, 1.20-2.69).

I-STOP-AFib explored an important subject “that has been understudied,” Dr. Conen said. “The trial has some limitations that the authors address themselves, but hopefully it opens the path to future studies that can build upon this experience.”

Dr. Marcus reported receiving personal fees and equity interest from InCarda Therapeutics; personal fees from Johnson & Johnson; and grants from Baylis Medical, Medtronic, the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

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

People with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation who explored potential triggers of their arrhythmia, and used them to make lifestyle changes, went on to show a 40% decline in subjectively experienced bouts of AFib in a randomized trial with an unusual design.

American Heart Association

But the study didn’t provide evidence that the drop in self-reported AFib necessarily improved their quality of life, its primary endpoint. Nor was there any apparent relationship between potential triggers and AFib episodes detected less subjectively using a handheld electrocardiography monitor.

Although the study – called I-STOP-AFib – has limitations, its results jibe with alcohol intake’s increasingly appreciated status as a potential AFib trigger. It was alone among many possible triggers tested in showing a consistent association with self-reported AFib.

As a result, the study offers no support for such a link between the arrhythmia and caffeine intake, sleep deprivation, dehydration, exercise, or other conditions sometimes perceived as triggers, observed principal investigator Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, University of California, San Francisco, when presenting results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. He is also lead author on the study’s simultaneous publication in JAMA Cardiology.

The I-STOP-AFib trial was unusual in part for its virtual design, in which participants followed instructions and tracked AFib episodes – both perceived and detected by the handheld ECG device – through a smartphone application. It also featured an N-of-1 randomized comparisons of different weeks in which individuals were or were not exposed to their self-selected trigger.

Such patients following their own weekly personalized randomization were compared to an entirely separate randomized control arm of the trial, in which patients simply tracked any ECG-monitored and self-perceived AFib episodes.
 

Current use in patients

Although wearable and smartphone-based ECG recorders are increasingly popular for AFib screening, Dr. Marcus said the devices may be especially helpful for validating whether a person’s symptoms are actually caused by AFib.

“I have actually suggested to some of my patients that they run some of these experiments,” he said at a media briefing on I-STOP-AFib before his main presentation of the trial. The demonstration might help patients recognize that some perceived triggers actually do not induce AFib.

Allowing patients to determine on their own whether a substance indeed triggers their AFib “is an efficient use of these devices,” Dr. Marcus said. Such N-of-1 exploration of possible triggers “might help free patients up to enjoy substances – caffeine or coffee is one example – that they otherwise might not, and may help actually reassure them that certain exposures –like certain exercises, which can also be beneficial – might actually not be harmful.”

Dr. Marcus and the other authors on the report noted – as he did at the AHA sessions – that the study has several limitations, such as the subjectivity of self-reported AFib, dropouts from the trial that shrank the randomization arms, and a population that may not be very representative.

There is also the potential for detection bias in the group assigned to track their selected triggers, as Dr. Marcus and some observers have noted.

It follows that conscious avoidance of a potential AFib trigger might well lead to a reduction in AFib subjectively identified by symptoms, proposed David Conen, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But perhaps there would have been no reduction in AFib had it been objectively documented with the handheld ECG device, he said in an interview.

“If I were to redesign the study,” he said, “I think the primary endpoint should be confirmed atrial fibrillation, because we would have to show first that the specific trigger actually reduced objective AFib events before we then try to address the question whether reducing that trigger improves quality of life.”
 

Unrepresentative sample

The trial entered 446 overwhelmingly White and college-educated adults known to have symptomatic paroxysmal AFib who were “interested in testing a presumed AFib trigger they could readily introduce or withhold” and who owned a smartphone; the average age was 58 years, and 58% were men. The cohort was randomly assigned to the trigger-testing group or the control group, charged only with tracking their AFib.

Of the total, 320, or about 72%, completed the study; those who did not were mostly from the trigger-testing arm, leaving 136 in that group versus 184 patients in the control group.

Potential triggers that participants selected for tracking included, foremost, caffeine, alcohol, reduced sleep, and exercise, followed by lying on the left side, dehydration, large meals, and cold food or drink, the report noted.

Patients in the control group used the smartphone app and handheld ECG monitor (KardiaMobile, AliveCor) to document the duration and severity of AFib episodes daily and received data summary reports through the app weekly for 10 weeks. They then had the option to follow the trigger-testing protocol at least once.

Those in the trigger-testing group conducted their N-of-1 trials by exposing themselves to their chosen potential trigger during 3 separate weeks and avoiding the trigger during 3 other weeks, alternating each of the 6 weeks of trigger exposure or avoidance. They were instructed through the app to start the 6-week sequence with one or the other strategy randomly and to regularly track their AFib.

At the end of 6 weeks, each participant in the trigger-testing group had the opportunity to review their data for any potential trigger-AFib associations. They were then to use the next 4 weeks to enact lifestyle changes based on what they learned – as described in the report and on clinicaltrials.gov. They had the option of repeating the entire N-of-1 sequence at least one more time.

Participants in both the trigger-tracking and control arms were tested at baseline and at 10 weeks using the validated Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire.

AFEQT scores didn’t change significantly over the 10 weeks in either arm, nor were they significantly different in one arm, compared with the other.

On the other hand, patients in the trigger-tracking arm reported significantly fewer daily AFib episodes during the final 4-week period of lifestyle changes based on their N-of-1 trial results, compared to the monitoring-only control group’s final 4 weeks.

The adjusted relative risk in the trigger-tracking arm was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.83; P < .001), the difference driven by patients who selected alcohol, dehydration, or exercise for their trigger, Dr. Marcus reported.

Only alcohol intake emerged consistently as a significant predictor of risk for self-reported AFib episodes in a series of meta-analyses conducted using all of the individual N-of-1 trials that provided per-protocol data. The odds ratio was 1.77 (95% CI, 1.20-2.69).

I-STOP-AFib explored an important subject “that has been understudied,” Dr. Conen said. “The trial has some limitations that the authors address themselves, but hopefully it opens the path to future studies that can build upon this experience.”

Dr. Marcus reported receiving personal fees and equity interest from InCarda Therapeutics; personal fees from Johnson & Johnson; and grants from Baylis Medical, Medtronic, the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

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

On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.

Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.

The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.

The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.

The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”

But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.

Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”

Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.

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

On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.

Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.

The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.

The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.

The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”

But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.

Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”

Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.

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

On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.

Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.

The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.

The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.

The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”

But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.

Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”

Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.

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

A novel trial using real-time monitoring found that drinking coffee did not increase atrial arrhythmias but was associated with more premature ventricular contractions.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

There was no increase in premature atrial contractions (PACs) or supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) with coffee consumption, and, in fact, there was less SVT in per protocol analyses.

Coffee consumption was also linked to a “clinically meaningful increase in physical activity as well as a clinically meaningful reduction in sleep,” coprincipal investigator Gregory M. Marcus, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Although some professional society guidelines warn against caffeine consumption to avoid arrhythmias, he noted that the data have been mixed and that growing evidence suggests coffee consumption may actually lower the risk for arrhythmias, diabetes, and even mortality. The exact relationship has been hard to prove, however, as most coffee studies are observational and rely on self-report.

The Coffee and Real-time Atrial and Ventricular Ectopy (CRAVE) trial took advantage of digital health tools to examine the effect of caffeine consumption on cardiac ectopy burden in 100 healthy volunteers using an N-of-1 design. The primary outcomes were daily PAC and premature ventricular contraction (PVC) counts.

Participants consumed as much coffee as they wanted for 1 day and avoided all caffeine the next, alternating the assignment in 2-day blocks over 2 weeks. They used a smartphone app to receive daily coffee assignments and reminders and wore a continuous recording electrocardiography monitor (ZioPatch, iRhythm Technologies); a continuous glucose monitor (Dexcom); and Fitbit Flex 2, which recorded step counts and sleep duration.

At baseline, 21% of participants drank six to seven cups of coffee per month, 29% drank one cup per day, 21% drank two to three cups per day, and 3% drank four to five cups per day. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cited 400 mg per day, or about four or five cups of coffee, as generally safe for healthy adults.

To assess adherence, participants were asked to press the button on the ZioPatch for every coffee drink and were queried daily regarding actual coffee consumption the previous day. Date-stamped receipts for coffee purchases were reimbursed, and smartphone geolocation was used to track coffee shop visits. The great majority of times, participants followed their assignment by all measures, Dr. Marcus said.

ITT and per protocol analyses

ZioPatch data collected over a median of 13.3 days showed a daily median of 12.8 PACs, 7.5 PVCs, 1 nonsustained SVT, and 1 nonsustained ventricular tachycardia.

In intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses, there was no evidence of a relationship between coffee consumption and daily PAC counts (RR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.20; P = .10).

In contrast, participants had an average of 54% more PVCs on days randomized to coffee by ITT (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.19-2.00; P = .001), and, per protocol, those consuming more than two cups of coffee per day had a doubling of PVCs (RR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.24-3.92; P = .007).

No relationship was observed with coffee consumption and SVT episodes in ITT analyses (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.69-1.03; P = .10), but, per protocol, every additional coffee drink consumed in real time was associated with a 12% lower risk for an SVT episode (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99; P = .028).

No significant relationships were observed with VT episodes, which were admittedly rare, Dr. Marcus said.

In ITT analyses that adjusted for day of the week, participants took an average of 1,058 more steps on days they drank coffee (95% CI, 441-1,675 steps; P = .001) but slept 36 fewer minutes (95% CI, 22-50 minutes; P < .001).

Per protocol, every additional coffee drink was associated with 587 more steps per day (95% CI, 355-820 steps; P < .001) and 18 fewer minutes of sleep (95% CI, 13-23 minutes; P < .001).

No significant differences in glucose levels were observed. Genetic analyses revealed two significant interactions: fast coffee metabolizers had a heightened risk for PVCs and slow metabolizers experienced more sleep deprivation, Dr. Marcus said.

Typical patients?

Dedicated discussant Sana Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said CRAVE is a “well-conducted and informative trial” that very nicely and effectively used a digital health platform.

She pointed out, however, that the trial enrolled healthy volunteers who not only owned a smartphone but were able to interact with the study team using it. They also had an average age of 38 years, median body mass index of 24 kg/m², and no prior arrhythmias or cardiovascular issues. “These are not representative of the average patient that we see in clinical practice.”

“The other thing to keep in mind is that the primary outcome that they looked at, while relevant, is not adequate in my view to help us derive definitive conclusions about how coffee consumption affects clinically meaningful arrhythmias,” Dr. Al-Khatib said. “Yes, PACs trigger atrial fibrillation, but they don’t do so in every patient. And PVCs have been shown to be associated with increased mortality as well as worsened cardiovascular outcomes, but that’s mostly in patients with structural heart disease.”

She praised the investigators for including genetic data in their analysis. “Whether the results related to physical activity and sleep translate into any major effect on clinical outcomes deserves a study.”

The overall findings need to be replicated by other groups, in other populations, and examine hard outcomes over longer follow-up, concluded Dr. Al-Khatib.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Marcus countered that the participants were “pretty run of the mill” coffee drinkers of all ages and that the study highlights the complexity of coffee consumption as well as providing unique data inferring causality regarding increasing physical activity.

“Because coffee is so commonly consumed, highlighting the actual effects is important, and the hope is that understanding those true causal effects and minimizing confounding will help tailor recommendations regarding coffee consumption,” he said. “For those concerned about atrial fibrillation, for example, these data suggest that avoiding coffee does not necessarily make sense to reduce the risk of atrial fibrillation. For those with ventricular arrhythmias, abstinence or minimizing coffee may be a worthwhile experiment.”

Kalyanam Shivkumar, MD, PhD, director of the cardiac arrhythmia center at the University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization that CRAVE is an important and much-needed study that provides reassuring and objective data for a common clinical question.

“It fits in with the emerging consensus that, in itself, coffee is not problematic,” he said. “And it provides a nice framework for what we’ll be seeing in the future – more studies that use these types of long ECG recordings and interlinking that data with biological readouts.”

Although it is too early to draw any conclusions regarding the genetic analyses, “future studies could use this as a baseline to further explore what happens between fast and slow metabolizers. This is a very useful stepping stone to putting data in context for an individual patient.”

Unless coffee consumption is excessive, such as over five cups per day in young people, all of the evidence points to coffee and caffeine being safe, Chip Lavie, MD, a frequent coffee researcher and medical director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, New Orleans, told this news organization.

“The benefits of coffee on physical activity/sleep seem to outweigh the risks as this current study suggests,” he said. “This study also supports the safety with regards to atrial arrhythmias, and suggests that those with symptomatic PVCs could try reducing coffee to see if they feel better. In total, however, the benefits of one or several cups of coffee per day on cardiovascular disease outweigh the risks.”

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Marcus reports research with the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, Medtronic, Eight Sleep, and Baylis; consulting for InCarda Therapeutics and Johnson & Johnson; and equity in InCarda Therapeutics as cofounder.

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

A novel trial using real-time monitoring found that drinking coffee did not increase atrial arrhythmias but was associated with more premature ventricular contractions.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

There was no increase in premature atrial contractions (PACs) or supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) with coffee consumption, and, in fact, there was less SVT in per protocol analyses.

Coffee consumption was also linked to a “clinically meaningful increase in physical activity as well as a clinically meaningful reduction in sleep,” coprincipal investigator Gregory M. Marcus, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Although some professional society guidelines warn against caffeine consumption to avoid arrhythmias, he noted that the data have been mixed and that growing evidence suggests coffee consumption may actually lower the risk for arrhythmias, diabetes, and even mortality. The exact relationship has been hard to prove, however, as most coffee studies are observational and rely on self-report.

The Coffee and Real-time Atrial and Ventricular Ectopy (CRAVE) trial took advantage of digital health tools to examine the effect of caffeine consumption on cardiac ectopy burden in 100 healthy volunteers using an N-of-1 design. The primary outcomes were daily PAC and premature ventricular contraction (PVC) counts.

Participants consumed as much coffee as they wanted for 1 day and avoided all caffeine the next, alternating the assignment in 2-day blocks over 2 weeks. They used a smartphone app to receive daily coffee assignments and reminders and wore a continuous recording electrocardiography monitor (ZioPatch, iRhythm Technologies); a continuous glucose monitor (Dexcom); and Fitbit Flex 2, which recorded step counts and sleep duration.

At baseline, 21% of participants drank six to seven cups of coffee per month, 29% drank one cup per day, 21% drank two to three cups per day, and 3% drank four to five cups per day. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cited 400 mg per day, or about four or five cups of coffee, as generally safe for healthy adults.

To assess adherence, participants were asked to press the button on the ZioPatch for every coffee drink and were queried daily regarding actual coffee consumption the previous day. Date-stamped receipts for coffee purchases were reimbursed, and smartphone geolocation was used to track coffee shop visits. The great majority of times, participants followed their assignment by all measures, Dr. Marcus said.

ITT and per protocol analyses

ZioPatch data collected over a median of 13.3 days showed a daily median of 12.8 PACs, 7.5 PVCs, 1 nonsustained SVT, and 1 nonsustained ventricular tachycardia.

In intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses, there was no evidence of a relationship between coffee consumption and daily PAC counts (RR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.20; P = .10).

In contrast, participants had an average of 54% more PVCs on days randomized to coffee by ITT (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.19-2.00; P = .001), and, per protocol, those consuming more than two cups of coffee per day had a doubling of PVCs (RR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.24-3.92; P = .007).

No relationship was observed with coffee consumption and SVT episodes in ITT analyses (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.69-1.03; P = .10), but, per protocol, every additional coffee drink consumed in real time was associated with a 12% lower risk for an SVT episode (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99; P = .028).

No significant relationships were observed with VT episodes, which were admittedly rare, Dr. Marcus said.

In ITT analyses that adjusted for day of the week, participants took an average of 1,058 more steps on days they drank coffee (95% CI, 441-1,675 steps; P = .001) but slept 36 fewer minutes (95% CI, 22-50 minutes; P < .001).

Per protocol, every additional coffee drink was associated with 587 more steps per day (95% CI, 355-820 steps; P < .001) and 18 fewer minutes of sleep (95% CI, 13-23 minutes; P < .001).

No significant differences in glucose levels were observed. Genetic analyses revealed two significant interactions: fast coffee metabolizers had a heightened risk for PVCs and slow metabolizers experienced more sleep deprivation, Dr. Marcus said.

Typical patients?

Dedicated discussant Sana Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said CRAVE is a “well-conducted and informative trial” that very nicely and effectively used a digital health platform.

She pointed out, however, that the trial enrolled healthy volunteers who not only owned a smartphone but were able to interact with the study team using it. They also had an average age of 38 years, median body mass index of 24 kg/m², and no prior arrhythmias or cardiovascular issues. “These are not representative of the average patient that we see in clinical practice.”

“The other thing to keep in mind is that the primary outcome that they looked at, while relevant, is not adequate in my view to help us derive definitive conclusions about how coffee consumption affects clinically meaningful arrhythmias,” Dr. Al-Khatib said. “Yes, PACs trigger atrial fibrillation, but they don’t do so in every patient. And PVCs have been shown to be associated with increased mortality as well as worsened cardiovascular outcomes, but that’s mostly in patients with structural heart disease.”

She praised the investigators for including genetic data in their analysis. “Whether the results related to physical activity and sleep translate into any major effect on clinical outcomes deserves a study.”

The overall findings need to be replicated by other groups, in other populations, and examine hard outcomes over longer follow-up, concluded Dr. Al-Khatib.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Marcus countered that the participants were “pretty run of the mill” coffee drinkers of all ages and that the study highlights the complexity of coffee consumption as well as providing unique data inferring causality regarding increasing physical activity.

“Because coffee is so commonly consumed, highlighting the actual effects is important, and the hope is that understanding those true causal effects and minimizing confounding will help tailor recommendations regarding coffee consumption,” he said. “For those concerned about atrial fibrillation, for example, these data suggest that avoiding coffee does not necessarily make sense to reduce the risk of atrial fibrillation. For those with ventricular arrhythmias, abstinence or minimizing coffee may be a worthwhile experiment.”

Kalyanam Shivkumar, MD, PhD, director of the cardiac arrhythmia center at the University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization that CRAVE is an important and much-needed study that provides reassuring and objective data for a common clinical question.

“It fits in with the emerging consensus that, in itself, coffee is not problematic,” he said. “And it provides a nice framework for what we’ll be seeing in the future – more studies that use these types of long ECG recordings and interlinking that data with biological readouts.”

Although it is too early to draw any conclusions regarding the genetic analyses, “future studies could use this as a baseline to further explore what happens between fast and slow metabolizers. This is a very useful stepping stone to putting data in context for an individual patient.”

Unless coffee consumption is excessive, such as over five cups per day in young people, all of the evidence points to coffee and caffeine being safe, Chip Lavie, MD, a frequent coffee researcher and medical director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, New Orleans, told this news organization.

“The benefits of coffee on physical activity/sleep seem to outweigh the risks as this current study suggests,” he said. “This study also supports the safety with regards to atrial arrhythmias, and suggests that those with symptomatic PVCs could try reducing coffee to see if they feel better. In total, however, the benefits of one or several cups of coffee per day on cardiovascular disease outweigh the risks.”

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Marcus reports research with the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, Medtronic, Eight Sleep, and Baylis; consulting for InCarda Therapeutics and Johnson & Johnson; and equity in InCarda Therapeutics as cofounder.

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

A novel trial using real-time monitoring found that drinking coffee did not increase atrial arrhythmias but was associated with more premature ventricular contractions.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

There was no increase in premature atrial contractions (PACs) or supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) with coffee consumption, and, in fact, there was less SVT in per protocol analyses.

Coffee consumption was also linked to a “clinically meaningful increase in physical activity as well as a clinically meaningful reduction in sleep,” coprincipal investigator Gregory M. Marcus, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Although some professional society guidelines warn against caffeine consumption to avoid arrhythmias, he noted that the data have been mixed and that growing evidence suggests coffee consumption may actually lower the risk for arrhythmias, diabetes, and even mortality. The exact relationship has been hard to prove, however, as most coffee studies are observational and rely on self-report.

The Coffee and Real-time Atrial and Ventricular Ectopy (CRAVE) trial took advantage of digital health tools to examine the effect of caffeine consumption on cardiac ectopy burden in 100 healthy volunteers using an N-of-1 design. The primary outcomes were daily PAC and premature ventricular contraction (PVC) counts.

Participants consumed as much coffee as they wanted for 1 day and avoided all caffeine the next, alternating the assignment in 2-day blocks over 2 weeks. They used a smartphone app to receive daily coffee assignments and reminders and wore a continuous recording electrocardiography monitor (ZioPatch, iRhythm Technologies); a continuous glucose monitor (Dexcom); and Fitbit Flex 2, which recorded step counts and sleep duration.

At baseline, 21% of participants drank six to seven cups of coffee per month, 29% drank one cup per day, 21% drank two to three cups per day, and 3% drank four to five cups per day. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cited 400 mg per day, or about four or five cups of coffee, as generally safe for healthy adults.

To assess adherence, participants were asked to press the button on the ZioPatch for every coffee drink and were queried daily regarding actual coffee consumption the previous day. Date-stamped receipts for coffee purchases were reimbursed, and smartphone geolocation was used to track coffee shop visits. The great majority of times, participants followed their assignment by all measures, Dr. Marcus said.

ITT and per protocol analyses

ZioPatch data collected over a median of 13.3 days showed a daily median of 12.8 PACs, 7.5 PVCs, 1 nonsustained SVT, and 1 nonsustained ventricular tachycardia.

In intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses, there was no evidence of a relationship between coffee consumption and daily PAC counts (RR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.20; P = .10).

In contrast, participants had an average of 54% more PVCs on days randomized to coffee by ITT (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.19-2.00; P = .001), and, per protocol, those consuming more than two cups of coffee per day had a doubling of PVCs (RR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.24-3.92; P = .007).

No relationship was observed with coffee consumption and SVT episodes in ITT analyses (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.69-1.03; P = .10), but, per protocol, every additional coffee drink consumed in real time was associated with a 12% lower risk for an SVT episode (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99; P = .028).

No significant relationships were observed with VT episodes, which were admittedly rare, Dr. Marcus said.

In ITT analyses that adjusted for day of the week, participants took an average of 1,058 more steps on days they drank coffee (95% CI, 441-1,675 steps; P = .001) but slept 36 fewer minutes (95% CI, 22-50 minutes; P < .001).

Per protocol, every additional coffee drink was associated with 587 more steps per day (95% CI, 355-820 steps; P < .001) and 18 fewer minutes of sleep (95% CI, 13-23 minutes; P < .001).

No significant differences in glucose levels were observed. Genetic analyses revealed two significant interactions: fast coffee metabolizers had a heightened risk for PVCs and slow metabolizers experienced more sleep deprivation, Dr. Marcus said.

Typical patients?

Dedicated discussant Sana Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said CRAVE is a “well-conducted and informative trial” that very nicely and effectively used a digital health platform.

She pointed out, however, that the trial enrolled healthy volunteers who not only owned a smartphone but were able to interact with the study team using it. They also had an average age of 38 years, median body mass index of 24 kg/m², and no prior arrhythmias or cardiovascular issues. “These are not representative of the average patient that we see in clinical practice.”

“The other thing to keep in mind is that the primary outcome that they looked at, while relevant, is not adequate in my view to help us derive definitive conclusions about how coffee consumption affects clinically meaningful arrhythmias,” Dr. Al-Khatib said. “Yes, PACs trigger atrial fibrillation, but they don’t do so in every patient. And PVCs have been shown to be associated with increased mortality as well as worsened cardiovascular outcomes, but that’s mostly in patients with structural heart disease.”

She praised the investigators for including genetic data in their analysis. “Whether the results related to physical activity and sleep translate into any major effect on clinical outcomes deserves a study.”

The overall findings need to be replicated by other groups, in other populations, and examine hard outcomes over longer follow-up, concluded Dr. Al-Khatib.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Marcus countered that the participants were “pretty run of the mill” coffee drinkers of all ages and that the study highlights the complexity of coffee consumption as well as providing unique data inferring causality regarding increasing physical activity.

“Because coffee is so commonly consumed, highlighting the actual effects is important, and the hope is that understanding those true causal effects and minimizing confounding will help tailor recommendations regarding coffee consumption,” he said. “For those concerned about atrial fibrillation, for example, these data suggest that avoiding coffee does not necessarily make sense to reduce the risk of atrial fibrillation. For those with ventricular arrhythmias, abstinence or minimizing coffee may be a worthwhile experiment.”

Kalyanam Shivkumar, MD, PhD, director of the cardiac arrhythmia center at the University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization that CRAVE is an important and much-needed study that provides reassuring and objective data for a common clinical question.

“It fits in with the emerging consensus that, in itself, coffee is not problematic,” he said. “And it provides a nice framework for what we’ll be seeing in the future – more studies that use these types of long ECG recordings and interlinking that data with biological readouts.”

Although it is too early to draw any conclusions regarding the genetic analyses, “future studies could use this as a baseline to further explore what happens between fast and slow metabolizers. This is a very useful stepping stone to putting data in context for an individual patient.”

Unless coffee consumption is excessive, such as over five cups per day in young people, all of the evidence points to coffee and caffeine being safe, Chip Lavie, MD, a frequent coffee researcher and medical director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, New Orleans, told this news organization.

“The benefits of coffee on physical activity/sleep seem to outweigh the risks as this current study suggests,” he said. “This study also supports the safety with regards to atrial arrhythmias, and suggests that those with symptomatic PVCs could try reducing coffee to see if they feel better. In total, however, the benefits of one or several cups of coffee per day on cardiovascular disease outweigh the risks.”

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Marcus reports research with the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, Medtronic, Eight Sleep, and Baylis; consulting for InCarda Therapeutics and Johnson & Johnson; and equity in InCarda Therapeutics as cofounder.

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

The proportion of hypertensive patients with blood pressure control fell substantially in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, if the data from 24 health systems is representative of national trends.

GlobalStock/Getty Images

The decline in blood pressure control corresponded with – and might be explained by – a parallel decline in follow-up visits for uncontrolled hypertension from the same data source, according to Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology in the division of quantitative health sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

If the data are representative, a wave of cardiovascular (CV) events might be coming.

The study, called BP Track, collated electronic medical data on almost 1.8 million patients with hypertension from 2017 through 2020. Up until the end of 2019 and prior to the pandemic, slightly less than 60% of these patients had blood pressure control, defined as less than 140/90 mm Hg.

While the pre-COVID control rates were already “suboptimal,” a decline began almost immediately when the full force of the COVID-19 pandemic began in March of 2020, said Dr. Chamberlain in reporting the BP Track results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

When graphed from the start of the pandemic until the end of 2020, the proportion under control fell 7.2% to a level just above 50%. For the more rigorous target of less than 130/80 mm Hg, the proportion fell 4.6% over the same period of time, leaving only about 25% at that level of control.

Repeat visits for BP control rebounded

The proportion of patients with a repeat office visit within 4 weeks of a diagnosis of uncontrolled hypertension fell even more steeply, reaching a nadir at about the middle of 2020, but it was followed by a partial recovery. The rate was 5% lower by the end of 2020, relative to the prepandemic rate (31.7% vs. 36.7%), but that was 5% higher than the nadir.

A similar phenomenon was observed with several other metrics. For example, there was a steep, immediate fall correlating with the onset of the pandemic in the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 10–mm Hg reduction or a BP under 140/90 mm Hg when treated for hypertension. Again, the nadir in this proportion was reached in about mid-2020 followed by a partial recovery. By the end of 2020, 5.9% fewer patients were achieving 10–mm Hg or better improvement in BP control when treated relative to the prepandemic level (23.8% vs. 29.7%), but this level was almost 10% higher than the nadir.

Data based on electronic medical records

The nearly 1.8 million patient records evaluated in the BP Track study were drawn from the 24 centers participating in the PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System. Nationally distributed, 18 of the 24 systems were academically affiliated.

When stratified by race, the proportion of Asians meeting the definition of BP control prior to the pandemic was about 5% higher than the overall average, and the proportion in Blacks was more than 5% lower. Whites had rates of blood pressure control very near the average. The relative declines in BP and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled blood pressure who had a repeat visit within 4 weeks during the pandemic were generally parallel across racial groups.

The implications of these data and the role of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood pressure control are “concerning,” according to Adam Bress, PharmD, department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Citing a study published in 2020 that suggested blood pressure control rates in the United States were already declining before the COVID-19 pandemic, he said the COVID-19 epidemic appears to be exacerbating an existing problem. He expressed particular concern for populations who already have low rates of control, such as African Americans.

“The impact of COVID-19 is likely to be disproportionately greater for underserved and minoritized patients,” said Dr. Bress, who was the lead author of a recent article on this specific topic.

The implication of BP Track is that a wave of cardiovascular events will be coming if the data are nationally representative.

“A recent meta-analysis shows that each 5–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure is associated with age-related reductions in CV events,” Dr. Bress said. For those 55 years of age or older, he said the risk reduction is about 10%. Given that the inverse is almost certainly true, he expects diminishing blood pressure control, whether COVID-19-related or not, to translate into increased CV events.

However, there is no guarantee that the BP Track data are representative of the U.S. population, cautioned Eugene Yang, MD, professor in the division of cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle. Even though a large group of patients was included, they were largely drawn from academic centers.

Nevertheless, Dr. Yang, who chairs the Hypertension Working Group of the American College of Cardiology’s Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, acknowledged that the implications are “scary.”

If the data are representative, “this type of reduction in blood pressure control would be expected to have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, but we also have to think of all the variables that were not tracked and might add to risk,” he said. He named such risk factors as weight gain, diminished exercise, and increased alcohol consumption, which have been cited by others as being exacerbated by the pandemic.

If these lead to more cardiovascular events on a population basis, the timing of these events would be expected to be age dependent.

“If you look at the patients included in this study, about 50% were 65 years of age or older. In a population like this you would expect to see an increase in events sooner rather than later,” said Dr. Wang.

In other words, if the trial is representative, a wave of cardiovascular events might be seen in the most vulnerable patients “within the next few years,” Dr. Yang speculated.

Dr. Chamberlain reports a research grant from EpidStrategies. Dr. Bress and Dr. Yang report no potential financial conflicts of interest.

The proportion of hypertensive patients with blood pressure control fell substantially in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, if the data from 24 health systems is representative of national trends.

GlobalStock/Getty Images

The decline in blood pressure control corresponded with – and might be explained by – a parallel decline in follow-up visits for uncontrolled hypertension from the same data source, according to Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology in the division of quantitative health sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

If the data are representative, a wave of cardiovascular (CV) events might be coming.

The study, called BP Track, collated electronic medical data on almost 1.8 million patients with hypertension from 2017 through 2020. Up until the end of 2019 and prior to the pandemic, slightly less than 60% of these patients had blood pressure control, defined as less than 140/90 mm Hg.

While the pre-COVID control rates were already “suboptimal,” a decline began almost immediately when the full force of the COVID-19 pandemic began in March of 2020, said Dr. Chamberlain in reporting the BP Track results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

When graphed from the start of the pandemic until the end of 2020, the proportion under control fell 7.2% to a level just above 50%. For the more rigorous target of less than 130/80 mm Hg, the proportion fell 4.6% over the same period of time, leaving only about 25% at that level of control.

Repeat visits for BP control rebounded

The proportion of patients with a repeat office visit within 4 weeks of a diagnosis of uncontrolled hypertension fell even more steeply, reaching a nadir at about the middle of 2020, but it was followed by a partial recovery. The rate was 5% lower by the end of 2020, relative to the prepandemic rate (31.7% vs. 36.7%), but that was 5% higher than the nadir.

A similar phenomenon was observed with several other metrics. For example, there was a steep, immediate fall correlating with the onset of the pandemic in the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 10–mm Hg reduction or a BP under 140/90 mm Hg when treated for hypertension. Again, the nadir in this proportion was reached in about mid-2020 followed by a partial recovery. By the end of 2020, 5.9% fewer patients were achieving 10–mm Hg or better improvement in BP control when treated relative to the prepandemic level (23.8% vs. 29.7%), but this level was almost 10% higher than the nadir.

Data based on electronic medical records

The nearly 1.8 million patient records evaluated in the BP Track study were drawn from the 24 centers participating in the PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System. Nationally distributed, 18 of the 24 systems were academically affiliated.

When stratified by race, the proportion of Asians meeting the definition of BP control prior to the pandemic was about 5% higher than the overall average, and the proportion in Blacks was more than 5% lower. Whites had rates of blood pressure control very near the average. The relative declines in BP and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled blood pressure who had a repeat visit within 4 weeks during the pandemic were generally parallel across racial groups.

The implications of these data and the role of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood pressure control are “concerning,” according to Adam Bress, PharmD, department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Citing a study published in 2020 that suggested blood pressure control rates in the United States were already declining before the COVID-19 pandemic, he said the COVID-19 epidemic appears to be exacerbating an existing problem. He expressed particular concern for populations who already have low rates of control, such as African Americans.

“The impact of COVID-19 is likely to be disproportionately greater for underserved and minoritized patients,” said Dr. Bress, who was the lead author of a recent article on this specific topic.

The implication of BP Track is that a wave of cardiovascular events will be coming if the data are nationally representative.

“A recent meta-analysis shows that each 5–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure is associated with age-related reductions in CV events,” Dr. Bress said. For those 55 years of age or older, he said the risk reduction is about 10%. Given that the inverse is almost certainly true, he expects diminishing blood pressure control, whether COVID-19-related or not, to translate into increased CV events.

However, there is no guarantee that the BP Track data are representative of the U.S. population, cautioned Eugene Yang, MD, professor in the division of cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle. Even though a large group of patients was included, they were largely drawn from academic centers.

Nevertheless, Dr. Yang, who chairs the Hypertension Working Group of the American College of Cardiology’s Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, acknowledged that the implications are “scary.”

If the data are representative, “this type of reduction in blood pressure control would be expected to have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, but we also have to think of all the variables that were not tracked and might add to risk,” he said. He named such risk factors as weight gain, diminished exercise, and increased alcohol consumption, which have been cited by others as being exacerbated by the pandemic.

If these lead to more cardiovascular events on a population basis, the timing of these events would be expected to be age dependent.

“If you look at the patients included in this study, about 50% were 65 years of age or older. In a population like this you would expect to see an increase in events sooner rather than later,” said Dr. Wang.

In other words, if the trial is representative, a wave of cardiovascular events might be seen in the most vulnerable patients “within the next few years,” Dr. Yang speculated.

Dr. Chamberlain reports a research grant from EpidStrategies. Dr. Bress and Dr. Yang report no potential financial conflicts of interest.

The proportion of hypertensive patients with blood pressure control fell substantially in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, if the data from 24 health systems is representative of national trends.

GlobalStock/Getty Images

The decline in blood pressure control corresponded with – and might be explained by – a parallel decline in follow-up visits for uncontrolled hypertension from the same data source, according to Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology in the division of quantitative health sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

If the data are representative, a wave of cardiovascular (CV) events might be coming.

The study, called BP Track, collated electronic medical data on almost 1.8 million patients with hypertension from 2017 through 2020. Up until the end of 2019 and prior to the pandemic, slightly less than 60% of these patients had blood pressure control, defined as less than 140/90 mm Hg.

While the pre-COVID control rates were already “suboptimal,” a decline began almost immediately when the full force of the COVID-19 pandemic began in March of 2020, said Dr. Chamberlain in reporting the BP Track results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

When graphed from the start of the pandemic until the end of 2020, the proportion under control fell 7.2% to a level just above 50%. For the more rigorous target of less than 130/80 mm Hg, the proportion fell 4.6% over the same period of time, leaving only about 25% at that level of control.

Repeat visits for BP control rebounded

The proportion of patients with a repeat office visit within 4 weeks of a diagnosis of uncontrolled hypertension fell even more steeply, reaching a nadir at about the middle of 2020, but it was followed by a partial recovery. The rate was 5% lower by the end of 2020, relative to the prepandemic rate (31.7% vs. 36.7%), but that was 5% higher than the nadir.

A similar phenomenon was observed with several other metrics. For example, there was a steep, immediate fall correlating with the onset of the pandemic in the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 10–mm Hg reduction or a BP under 140/90 mm Hg when treated for hypertension. Again, the nadir in this proportion was reached in about mid-2020 followed by a partial recovery. By the end of 2020, 5.9% fewer patients were achieving 10–mm Hg or better improvement in BP control when treated relative to the prepandemic level (23.8% vs. 29.7%), but this level was almost 10% higher than the nadir.

Data based on electronic medical records

The nearly 1.8 million patient records evaluated in the BP Track study were drawn from the 24 centers participating in the PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System. Nationally distributed, 18 of the 24 systems were academically affiliated.

When stratified by race, the proportion of Asians meeting the definition of BP control prior to the pandemic was about 5% higher than the overall average, and the proportion in Blacks was more than 5% lower. Whites had rates of blood pressure control very near the average. The relative declines in BP and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled blood pressure who had a repeat visit within 4 weeks during the pandemic were generally parallel across racial groups.

The implications of these data and the role of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood pressure control are “concerning,” according to Adam Bress, PharmD, department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Citing a study published in 2020 that suggested blood pressure control rates in the United States were already declining before the COVID-19 pandemic, he said the COVID-19 epidemic appears to be exacerbating an existing problem. He expressed particular concern for populations who already have low rates of control, such as African Americans.

“The impact of COVID-19 is likely to be disproportionately greater for underserved and minoritized patients,” said Dr. Bress, who was the lead author of a recent article on this specific topic.

The implication of BP Track is that a wave of cardiovascular events will be coming if the data are nationally representative.

“A recent meta-analysis shows that each 5–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure is associated with age-related reductions in CV events,” Dr. Bress said. For those 55 years of age or older, he said the risk reduction is about 10%. Given that the inverse is almost certainly true, he expects diminishing blood pressure control, whether COVID-19-related or not, to translate into increased CV events.

However, there is no guarantee that the BP Track data are representative of the U.S. population, cautioned Eugene Yang, MD, professor in the division of cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle. Even though a large group of patients was included, they were largely drawn from academic centers.

Nevertheless, Dr. Yang, who chairs the Hypertension Working Group of the American College of Cardiology’s Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, acknowledged that the implications are “scary.”

If the data are representative, “this type of reduction in blood pressure control would be expected to have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, but we also have to think of all the variables that were not tracked and might add to risk,” he said. He named such risk factors as weight gain, diminished exercise, and increased alcohol consumption, which have been cited by others as being exacerbated by the pandemic.

If these lead to more cardiovascular events on a population basis, the timing of these events would be expected to be age dependent.

“If you look at the patients included in this study, about 50% were 65 years of age or older. In a population like this you would expect to see an increase in events sooner rather than later,” said Dr. Wang.

In other words, if the trial is representative, a wave of cardiovascular events might be seen in the most vulnerable patients “within the next few years,” Dr. Yang speculated.

Dr. Chamberlain reports a research grant from EpidStrategies. Dr. Bress and Dr. Yang report no potential financial conflicts of interest.