Cardiology

Perioperative hyperglycemia, defined as blood glucose levels ≥ 180 mg/dL in the immediate pre- and postoperative period, is associated with increased postoperative morbidity, including infections, preoperative interventions, and in-hospital mortality.^1-3 Despite being identified as a barrier to optimal perioperative glycemic control, limited evidence is available on patient or health care practitioner (HCP) adherence to preoperative insulin protocols.^4-6

Background

Despite mounting evidence of the advantages of maintaining perioperative glucose levels between 80 and 180 mg/dL, available guidelines vary in their recommendations for long-acting basal insulin dosing.^7-10 The Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia suggests using 100% of the prescribed evening dosage of long-acting basal insulin dose on the night before surgery in patients without a history of nocturnal or morning hypoglycemia (category 2A evidence).⁹ However, the revised 2016 United Kingdom National Health Service consensus guideline recommends using 80% to 100% of the prescribed evening dosage of long-acting basal insulin dose on the night before surgery.⁷ The 2022 American Diabetes Association references an observational study of patients with type 2 DM (T2DM) treated with evening-only, long-acting glargine insulin, indicating that the optimal basal insulin dose on the evening before surgery is about 75% of the outpatient dose.^5,10 However, in a randomized, prospective open trial of patients with DM treated with evening-only long-acting basal insulin, no significant difference was noted in the target day of surgery (DOS) glucose levels among different dosing strategies on the evening before surgery.⁶ Presently, the optimal dose of long-acting insulin analogs on the evening before surgery is unknown.

Additionally, little is known about the other factors that influence perioperative glycemic control. Several barriers to optimal perioperative care of patients with DM have been identified, including lack of prioritization by HCPs, lack of knowledge about current evidence-based recommendations, and lack of patient information and involvement.⁴ To determine the effect of patient adherence to preoperative medication instructions on postoperative outcome, a cross-sectional study assessed surgical patients admitted to the postanesthetic care unit (PACU) and found that only 70% of patients with insulin-treated DM took their medications preoperatively. Additionally, 23% of nonadherent patients who omitted their medications either did not understand or forgot preoperative medication management instructions. Preoperative DM medication omission was associated with higher rates of hyperglycemia in the PACU (23.8% vs 3.6%; P = .02).¹¹ Importantly, to our knowledge, the extent of HCP adherence to DM management protocols and the subsequent effect on DOS hyperglycemia has not been examined until now.For patients with DM treated with an evening dose of long-acting basal insulin (ie, either once-daily long-acting basal insulin in the evening or twice-daily long-acting basal insulin, both morning and evening) presenting for elective noncardiac surgery, our aim was to decrease the rate of DOS hyperglycemia from 29% (our baseline) to 15% by intensifying the dose of insulin on the evening before surgery without increasing the rate of hypoglycemia. We also sought to determine the rates of HCP adherence to our insulin protocols as well as patients’ self-reported adherence to HCP instructions over the course of this quality improvement (QI) initiative.

Quality Improvement Program

Our surgical department consists of 11 surgical subspecialties that performed approximately 4400 noncardiac surgeries in 2019. All patients undergoing elective surgery are evaluated in the preoperative clinic, which is staffed by an anesthesiology professional (attending and resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) and internal medicine attending physicians. At the preoperative visit, each patient is evaluated by anesthesiology; medically complex patients may also be referred to an internal medicine professional for further risk stratification and optimization before surgery.

At the preoperative clinic visit, HCPs prepare written patient instructions for the preoperative management of medications, including glucose-lowering medications, based on a DM management protocol that was implemented in 2016 for the preoperative management of insulin, noninsulin injectable agents, and oral hyperglycemic agents. According to this protocol, patients with DM treated with evening long-acting basal insulin (eg, glargine insulin) are instructed to take 50% of their usual evening dose the evening before surgery. A preoperative clinic nurse reviews the final preoperative medication instructions with the patient at the end of the clinic visit. Patients are also instructed to avoid oral intake other than water and necessary medications after midnight before surgery regardless of the time of surgery. On the DOS, the patient’s blood glucose level is measured on arrival to the presurgical area.

Our QI initiative focused only on the dose of self-administered, long-acting basal insulin on the evening before surgery. The effect of the morning of surgery long-acting insulin dose on the DOS glucose levels largely depends on the timing of surgery, which is variable; therefore, we did not target this dose for our initiative. Patients receiving intermediate-acting neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin were excluded because our protocol does not recommend a dose reduction for NPH insulin on the evening before surgery.

We developed a comprehensive driver diagram to help elucidate the different factors contributing to DOS hyperglycemia and to guide specific QI interventions.¹² Some of the identified contributors to DOS hyperglycemia, such as the length of preoperative fasting and timing of surgery, are unpredictable and were deemed difficult to address preoperatively. Other contributors to DOS hyperglycemia, such as outpatient DM management, often require interventions over several months, which is well beyond the time usually allotted for preoperative evaluation and optimization. On the other hand, immediate preoperative insulin dosing directly affects DOS glycemic control; therefore, improvement of the preoperative insulin management protocol to optimize the dosage on the evening before surgery was considered to be an achievable QI goal with the potential for decreasing the rate of DOS hyperglycemia in patients presenting for elective noncardiac surgery.

We used the Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ) as a framework to identify key contextual factors that may affect the success of our QI project.¹³ Limited resource availability and difficulty with dissemination of protocol changes in the preoperative clinic were determined to be potential barriers to the successful implementation of our QI initiative. Nonetheless, senior leadership support, microsystem QI culture, QI team skills, and physician involvement supported the implementation. The revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) guidelines were followed for this study.¹⁴

Interventions

With stakeholder input from anesthesiology, internal medicine, endocrinology, and nursing, we designed an intervention to iteratively change the HCP protocol instructions for long-acting insulin dosing on the evening before surgery. In phase 1 of the study (October 1, 2018, to March 11, 2019), we obtained baseline data on the rates of DOS hyperglycemia (blood glucose ≥ 180 mg/dL) and hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 80 mg/dL), as well as patient and HCP adherence rates to our existing preoperative DM protocol. For phase 2 (March 12, 2019, to July 22, 2019), the preoperative DM management protocol was changed to increase the dose of long-acting basal insulin on the evening before surgery for patients with hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) levels > 8% from 50% of the usual outpatient dose to 100%. Finally, in phase 3 (July 23, 2019, to March 12, 2020), the protocol was changed to increase the dose of long-acting basal insulin on the evening before surgery for patients with HbA_1c levels ≤ 8% from 50% of the usual outpatient dose to 75% while sustaining the phase 2 change. Preoperative HCPs were informed of the protocol changes in person and were provided with electronic and hard copies of each new protocol.

Protocol

We used a prospective cohort design of 424 consecutive patients with DM who presented for preoperative evaluation for elective noncardiac surgery between October 1, 2018, and March 12, 2020. For the subset of 195 patients treated with an evening dose of long-acting basal insulin, we examined the effect of intensification of this preoperative basal insulin dose on DOS hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, HCP adherence to iterative changes of the protocol, and patient adherence to HCP instructions on preoperative medication dosing. The QI project was concluded when elective surgeries were paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

We created a standardized preoperative data collection form that included information on the most recent HbA_1c, time, dose, and type of patient-administered insulin on the evening before surgery, and DOS blood glucose level. A preoperative clinic nurse completed the standardized preoperative data collection form. The HCP’s preoperative medication instructions and the preoperative data collection forms were gathered for review and data analysis.

The primary outcome was DOS hyperglycemia (blood glucose levels ≥ 180 mg/dL). We monitored the rate of DOS hypoglycemia (blood glucose levels < 80 mg/dL) as a balancing measure to ensure safety with long-acting basal insulin intensification. Although hypoglycemia is defined as a blood glucose level < 70 mg/dL, a target glucose range of 80 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL is recommended during the perioperative period.⁸ Therefore, we chose a more conservative definition of hypoglycemia (blood glucose levels < 80 mg/dL) to adhere to the recommended perioperative glucose target range.

Process measures included HCP adherence to each protocol change, which was assessed by comparing written preoperative patient instructions to the current protocol. Similarly, patient adherence to HCP-recommended long-acting basal insulin dosing was assessed by comparing written preoperative patient instructions to the patient’s self-reported time and dose of long-acting basal insulin on the evening before surgery. For any discrepancy between the HCP instructions and protocol or HCP-recommended dose and patient self-reported dose of long-acting basal insulin, a detailed chart review was performed to determine the etiology.

Statistical Analysis

We used the statistical process p-control chart to assess the effect of iterative changes to the preoperative long-acting basal insulin protocol on DOS hyperglycemia. The proportion defective (rate of DOS hyperglycemia) was plotted against time to determine whether the observed variations in the rate of DOS hyperglycemia over time were attributable to random common causes or special causes because of our intervention. The lower control limit (LCL) and upper control limit (UCL) define the limits of expected outcome measures in a stable process prior to introducing changes and were set at 3 SDs from the mean to balance the likelihood of type I (false-positive) and type II (false-negative) errors. Because of the variable interval sample sizes, we used the CRITBINOM function of Microsoft Excel to calculate the exact UCL satisfying the 3 SD limits of 0.99865.¹⁵ The Shewhart rules (outliers, runs or shifts, trends, sawtooth) were used to analyze the p-control chart to identify special cause signals resulting from our interventions.¹⁶ We used the statistical process t-control chart to record the time (days) between the few occurrences of DOS hypoglycemia because cases of hypoglycemia were rare.

Ethical Consideration

The Human Research Protection Program, Associate Chief of Staff for Research and Development, and Quality, Safety, and Values department reviewed this project in accordance with the Veterans Health Administration Program Guide 1200.21 and determined that it was a nonresearch operations activity; thus, approval by an institutional review board was not needed. The authors declare no competing interests.

Patient Outcomes

We prospectively followed 424 consecutive patients with DM undergoing elective noncardiac surgery from the time of the preoperative clinic evaluation until DOS; 195 patients were on evening

A subgroup analysis of DOS glucose levels in insulin-treated patients with preoperative HbA_1c levels > 8% did not demonstrate a change in the rate of

Discussion

The management and prevention of immediate perioperative hyperglycemia and glycemic variability have attracted attention as evidence has mounted for their association with postoperative morbidity and mortality.^1,2,17 Available guidelines for preventing DOS hyperglycemia vary in their recommendations for preoperative insulin management.^7-10 Notably, concerns about iatrogenic hypoglycemia often hinder efforts to lower rates of DOS hyperglycemia.⁴ We successfully implemented an iterative intensification protocol for preoperative long-acting basal insulin doses on the evening before surgery but did not observe a lower rate of hyperglycemia. Importantly, we also did not observe a higher rate of hypoglycemia on the DOS, as observed in a previous study.⁵

The observational study by Demma and colleagues found that patients receiving 75% of their evening, long-acting basal insulin dose were significantly more likely to achieve target blood glucose levels of 100 to 180 mg/dL than patients receiving no insulin at all (78% vs 0%; P = .001). However, no significant difference was noted when this group was compared with patients receiving 50% of their evening, long-acting basal insulin doses (78% vs 70%; P = .56). This is more clinically pertinent as it is generally accepted that the evening, long-acting insulin dose should not be entirely withheld on the evening before surgery.⁵

These findings are consistent with our observation that the rate of DOS hyperglycemia did not decrease with intensification of the evening, long-acting insulin dose from 50% to 100% of the prescribed dose in patients with HbA_1c levels > 8% (phase 2) and 50% to 75% of the prescribed dose in patients with HbA_1c levels ≤ 8% (phase 3). In the study by Demma and colleagues, few patients presented with preoperative hypoglycemia (2.7%) but all had received 100% of their evening, long-acting basal insulin dose, suggesting a significant increase in the rate of hypoglycemia compared with patients receiving lower doses of insulin (P = .01).⁵ However, long-term DM control as assessed by HbA_1c level was available for < 10% of the patients, making it difficult to evaluate the effect of overall DM control on the results.⁵ In our study, preoperative HbA_1c levels were available for 99.5% of the patients and only those with HbA_1c levels > 8% received 100% of their evening, long-acting insulin dose on the evening before surgery. Notably, we did not observe a higher rate of hypoglycemia in this patient population, indicating that preoperative insulin dose intensification is safe for this subgroup.

Although HCP adherence to perioperative DM management protocols has been identified as a predominant barrier to the delivery of optimal perioperative DM care, prior studies of various preoperative insulin protocols to reduce perioperative hyperglycemia have not reported HCP adherence to their insulin protocols or its effect on DOS hyperglycemia.^4-6 Additionally, patient adherence to HCP instructions is a key factor identified in our driver diagram that may influence DOS hyperglycemia, a hypothesis that is supported by a prior cross-sectional study showing an increased rate of hyperglycemia in the PACU with omission of preoperative DM medication.¹¹ In our study, patient adherence to preoperative medication management instructions was higher than reported previously and remained consistently high regardless of protocol changes, which may explain why patient adherence did not affect the rate of DOS hyperglycemia.

Although not part of our study protocol, our preoperative HCPs routinely prepare written patient instructions for the preoperative management of medications for all patients, which likely explains higher patient adherence to instructions in our study than seen in the previous study where written instructions were only encouraged.¹¹ However, HCP adherence to the protocol decreased after our phase 2 changes and was associated with a transient increase in DOS hyperglycemia rates. The DOS hyperglycemia rates returned to baseline levels with ongoing QI efforts and education to improve HCP adherence to protocol.

Limitations

Our QI initiative had several limitations. Nearly all patients were male veterans with T2DM, and most were older (range, 50-89 years). This limits the generalizability to women, younger patients, and people with type 1 DM. Additionally, our data collection relied on completion and collection of the preoperative form by different HCPs, allowing for sampling bias if some patients with DM undergoing elective noncardiac surgery were missed. Furthermore, although we could verify HCP adherence to the preoperative DM management protocols by reviewing their written instructions, we relied on patients’ self-reported adherence to the preoperative instructions. Finally, we did not evaluate postoperative blood glucose levels because the effect of intraoperative factors such as fluid, insulin, and glucocorticoid administration on postoperative glucose levels are variable. To the best of our knowledge, no other major systematic changes occurred in the preoperative care of patients with DM during the study period.

Conclusions

The findings of our QI initiative suggest that HCP adherence to preoperative DM management protocols may be a key contributor to DOS hyperglycemia and that ensuring HCP adherence may be as important as preoperative insulin dose adjustments. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report rates of HCP adherence to preoperative DM management protocols and its effect on DOS hyperglycemia. We will focus future QI efforts on optimizing HCP adherence to preoperative DM management protocols at our institution.

Acknowledgments

We thank our endocrinology expert, Dr. Kristina Utzschneider, for her guidance in designing this improvement project and our academic research coach, Dr. Helene Starks, for her help in editing the manuscript.

Perioperative hyperglycemia, defined as blood glucose levels ≥ 180 mg/dL in the immediate pre- and postoperative period, is associated with increased postoperative morbidity, including infections, preoperative interventions, and in-hospital mortality.^1-3 Despite being identified as a barrier to optimal perioperative glycemic control, limited evidence is available on patient or health care practitioner (HCP) adherence to preoperative insulin protocols.^4-6

Background

Despite mounting evidence of the advantages of maintaining perioperative glucose levels between 80 and 180 mg/dL, available guidelines vary in their recommendations for long-acting basal insulin dosing.^7-10 The Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia suggests using 100% of the prescribed evening dosage of long-acting basal insulin dose on the night before surgery in patients without a history of nocturnal or morning hypoglycemia (category 2A evidence).⁹ However, the revised 2016 United Kingdom National Health Service consensus guideline recommends using 80% to 100% of the prescribed evening dosage of long-acting basal insulin dose on the night before surgery.⁷ The 2022 American Diabetes Association references an observational study of patients with type 2 DM (T2DM) treated with evening-only, long-acting glargine insulin, indicating that the optimal basal insulin dose on the evening before surgery is about 75% of the outpatient dose.^5,10 However, in a randomized, prospective open trial of patients with DM treated with evening-only long-acting basal insulin, no significant difference was noted in the target day of surgery (DOS) glucose levels among different dosing strategies on the evening before surgery.⁶ Presently, the optimal dose of long-acting insulin analogs on the evening before surgery is unknown.

Additionally, little is known about the other factors that influence perioperative glycemic control. Several barriers to optimal perioperative care of patients with DM have been identified, including lack of prioritization by HCPs, lack of knowledge about current evidence-based recommendations, and lack of patient information and involvement.⁴ To determine the effect of patient adherence to preoperative medication instructions on postoperative outcome, a cross-sectional study assessed surgical patients admitted to the postanesthetic care unit (PACU) and found that only 70% of patients with insulin-treated DM took their medications preoperatively. Additionally, 23% of nonadherent patients who omitted their medications either did not understand or forgot preoperative medication management instructions. Preoperative DM medication omission was associated with higher rates of hyperglycemia in the PACU (23.8% vs 3.6%; P = .02).¹¹ Importantly, to our knowledge, the extent of HCP adherence to DM management protocols and the subsequent effect on DOS hyperglycemia has not been examined until now.For patients with DM treated with an evening dose of long-acting basal insulin (ie, either once-daily long-acting basal insulin in the evening or twice-daily long-acting basal insulin, both morning and evening) presenting for elective noncardiac surgery, our aim was to decrease the rate of DOS hyperglycemia from 29% (our baseline) to 15% by intensifying the dose of insulin on the evening before surgery without increasing the rate of hypoglycemia. We also sought to determine the rates of HCP adherence to our insulin protocols as well as patients’ self-reported adherence to HCP instructions over the course of this quality improvement (QI) initiative.

Quality Improvement Program

Our surgical department consists of 11 surgical subspecialties that performed approximately 4400 noncardiac surgeries in 2019. All patients undergoing elective surgery are evaluated in the preoperative clinic, which is staffed by an anesthesiology professional (attending and resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) and internal medicine attending physicians. At the preoperative visit, each patient is evaluated by anesthesiology; medically complex patients may also be referred to an internal medicine professional for further risk stratification and optimization before surgery.

At the preoperative clinic visit, HCPs prepare written patient instructions for the preoperative management of medications, including glucose-lowering medications, based on a DM management protocol that was implemented in 2016 for the preoperative management of insulin, noninsulin injectable agents, and oral hyperglycemic agents. According to this protocol, patients with DM treated with evening long-acting basal insulin (eg, glargine insulin) are instructed to take 50% of their usual evening dose the evening before surgery. A preoperative clinic nurse reviews the final preoperative medication instructions with the patient at the end of the clinic visit. Patients are also instructed to avoid oral intake other than water and necessary medications after midnight before surgery regardless of the time of surgery. On the DOS, the patient’s blood glucose level is measured on arrival to the presurgical area.

Our QI initiative focused only on the dose of self-administered, long-acting basal insulin on the evening before surgery. The effect of the morning of surgery long-acting insulin dose on the DOS glucose levels largely depends on the timing of surgery, which is variable; therefore, we did not target this dose for our initiative. Patients receiving intermediate-acting neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin were excluded because our protocol does not recommend a dose reduction for NPH insulin on the evening before surgery.

We developed a comprehensive driver diagram to help elucidate the different factors contributing to DOS hyperglycemia and to guide specific QI interventions.¹² Some of the identified contributors to DOS hyperglycemia, such as the length of preoperative fasting and timing of surgery, are unpredictable and were deemed difficult to address preoperatively. Other contributors to DOS hyperglycemia, such as outpatient DM management, often require interventions over several months, which is well beyond the time usually allotted for preoperative evaluation and optimization. On the other hand, immediate preoperative insulin dosing directly affects DOS glycemic control; therefore, improvement of the preoperative insulin management protocol to optimize the dosage on the evening before surgery was considered to be an achievable QI goal with the potential for decreasing the rate of DOS hyperglycemia in patients presenting for elective noncardiac surgery.

We used the Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ) as a framework to identify key contextual factors that may affect the success of our QI project.¹³ Limited resource availability and difficulty with dissemination of protocol changes in the preoperative clinic were determined to be potential barriers to the successful implementation of our QI initiative. Nonetheless, senior leadership support, microsystem QI culture, QI team skills, and physician involvement supported the implementation. The revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) guidelines were followed for this study.¹⁴

Interventions

With stakeholder input from anesthesiology, internal medicine, endocrinology, and nursing, we designed an intervention to iteratively change the HCP protocol instructions for long-acting insulin dosing on the evening before surgery. In phase 1 of the study (October 1, 2018, to March 11, 2019), we obtained baseline data on the rates of DOS hyperglycemia (blood glucose ≥ 180 mg/dL) and hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 80 mg/dL), as well as patient and HCP adherence rates to our existing preoperative DM protocol. For phase 2 (March 12, 2019, to July 22, 2019), the preoperative DM management protocol was changed to increase the dose of long-acting basal insulin on the evening before surgery for patients with hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) levels > 8% from 50% of the usual outpatient dose to 100%. Finally, in phase 3 (July 23, 2019, to March 12, 2020), the protocol was changed to increase the dose of long-acting basal insulin on the evening before surgery for patients with HbA_1c levels ≤ 8% from 50% of the usual outpatient dose to 75% while sustaining the phase 2 change. Preoperative HCPs were informed of the protocol changes in person and were provided with electronic and hard copies of each new protocol.

Protocol

We used a prospective cohort design of 424 consecutive patients with DM who presented for preoperative evaluation for elective noncardiac surgery between October 1, 2018, and March 12, 2020. For the subset of 195 patients treated with an evening dose of long-acting basal insulin, we examined the effect of intensification of this preoperative basal insulin dose on DOS hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, HCP adherence to iterative changes of the protocol, and patient adherence to HCP instructions on preoperative medication dosing. The QI project was concluded when elective surgeries were paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

We created a standardized preoperative data collection form that included information on the most recent HbA_1c, time, dose, and type of patient-administered insulin on the evening before surgery, and DOS blood glucose level. A preoperative clinic nurse completed the standardized preoperative data collection form. The HCP’s preoperative medication instructions and the preoperative data collection forms were gathered for review and data analysis.

The primary outcome was DOS hyperglycemia (blood glucose levels ≥ 180 mg/dL). We monitored the rate of DOS hypoglycemia (blood glucose levels < 80 mg/dL) as a balancing measure to ensure safety with long-acting basal insulin intensification. Although hypoglycemia is defined as a blood glucose level < 70 mg/dL, a target glucose range of 80 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL is recommended during the perioperative period.⁸ Therefore, we chose a more conservative definition of hypoglycemia (blood glucose levels < 80 mg/dL) to adhere to the recommended perioperative glucose target range.

Process measures included HCP adherence to each protocol change, which was assessed by comparing written preoperative patient instructions to the current protocol. Similarly, patient adherence to HCP-recommended long-acting basal insulin dosing was assessed by comparing written preoperative patient instructions to the patient’s self-reported time and dose of long-acting basal insulin on the evening before surgery. For any discrepancy between the HCP instructions and protocol or HCP-recommended dose and patient self-reported dose of long-acting basal insulin, a detailed chart review was performed to determine the etiology.

Statistical Analysis

We used the statistical process p-control chart to assess the effect of iterative changes to the preoperative long-acting basal insulin protocol on DOS hyperglycemia. The proportion defective (rate of DOS hyperglycemia) was plotted against time to determine whether the observed variations in the rate of DOS hyperglycemia over time were attributable to random common causes or special causes because of our intervention. The lower control limit (LCL) and upper control limit (UCL) define the limits of expected outcome measures in a stable process prior to introducing changes and were set at 3 SDs from the mean to balance the likelihood of type I (false-positive) and type II (false-negative) errors. Because of the variable interval sample sizes, we used the CRITBINOM function of Microsoft Excel to calculate the exact UCL satisfying the 3 SD limits of 0.99865.¹⁵ The Shewhart rules (outliers, runs or shifts, trends, sawtooth) were used to analyze the p-control chart to identify special cause signals resulting from our interventions.¹⁶ We used the statistical process t-control chart to record the time (days) between the few occurrences of DOS hypoglycemia because cases of hypoglycemia were rare.

Ethical Consideration

The Human Research Protection Program, Associate Chief of Staff for Research and Development, and Quality, Safety, and Values department reviewed this project in accordance with the Veterans Health Administration Program Guide 1200.21 and determined that it was a nonresearch operations activity; thus, approval by an institutional review board was not needed. The authors declare no competing interests.

Patient Outcomes

We prospectively followed 424 consecutive patients with DM undergoing elective noncardiac surgery from the time of the preoperative clinic evaluation until DOS; 195 patients were on evening

A subgroup analysis of DOS glucose levels in insulin-treated patients with preoperative HbA_1c levels > 8% did not demonstrate a change in the rate of

Discussion

The management and prevention of immediate perioperative hyperglycemia and glycemic variability have attracted attention as evidence has mounted for their association with postoperative morbidity and mortality.^1,2,17 Available guidelines for preventing DOS hyperglycemia vary in their recommendations for preoperative insulin management.^7-10 Notably, concerns about iatrogenic hypoglycemia often hinder efforts to lower rates of DOS hyperglycemia.⁴ We successfully implemented an iterative intensification protocol for preoperative long-acting basal insulin doses on the evening before surgery but did not observe a lower rate of hyperglycemia. Importantly, we also did not observe a higher rate of hypoglycemia on the DOS, as observed in a previous study.⁵

The observational study by Demma and colleagues found that patients receiving 75% of their evening, long-acting basal insulin dose were significantly more likely to achieve target blood glucose levels of 100 to 180 mg/dL than patients receiving no insulin at all (78% vs 0%; P = .001). However, no significant difference was noted when this group was compared with patients receiving 50% of their evening, long-acting basal insulin doses (78% vs 70%; P = .56). This is more clinically pertinent as it is generally accepted that the evening, long-acting insulin dose should not be entirely withheld on the evening before surgery.⁵

These findings are consistent with our observation that the rate of DOS hyperglycemia did not decrease with intensification of the evening, long-acting insulin dose from 50% to 100% of the prescribed dose in patients with HbA_1c levels > 8% (phase 2) and 50% to 75% of the prescribed dose in patients with HbA_1c levels ≤ 8% (phase 3). In the study by Demma and colleagues, few patients presented with preoperative hypoglycemia (2.7%) but all had received 100% of their evening, long-acting basal insulin dose, suggesting a significant increase in the rate of hypoglycemia compared with patients receiving lower doses of insulin (P = .01).⁵ However, long-term DM control as assessed by HbA_1c level was available for < 10% of the patients, making it difficult to evaluate the effect of overall DM control on the results.⁵ In our study, preoperative HbA_1c levels were available for 99.5% of the patients and only those with HbA_1c levels > 8% received 100% of their evening, long-acting insulin dose on the evening before surgery. Notably, we did not observe a higher rate of hypoglycemia in this patient population, indicating that preoperative insulin dose intensification is safe for this subgroup.

Although HCP adherence to perioperative DM management protocols has been identified as a predominant barrier to the delivery of optimal perioperative DM care, prior studies of various preoperative insulin protocols to reduce perioperative hyperglycemia have not reported HCP adherence to their insulin protocols or its effect on DOS hyperglycemia.^4-6 Additionally, patient adherence to HCP instructions is a key factor identified in our driver diagram that may influence DOS hyperglycemia, a hypothesis that is supported by a prior cross-sectional study showing an increased rate of hyperglycemia in the PACU with omission of preoperative DM medication.¹¹ In our study, patient adherence to preoperative medication management instructions was higher than reported previously and remained consistently high regardless of protocol changes, which may explain why patient adherence did not affect the rate of DOS hyperglycemia.

Although not part of our study protocol, our preoperative HCPs routinely prepare written patient instructions for the preoperative management of medications for all patients, which likely explains higher patient adherence to instructions in our study than seen in the previous study where written instructions were only encouraged.¹¹ However, HCP adherence to the protocol decreased after our phase 2 changes and was associated with a transient increase in DOS hyperglycemia rates. The DOS hyperglycemia rates returned to baseline levels with ongoing QI efforts and education to improve HCP adherence to protocol.

Limitations

Our QI initiative had several limitations. Nearly all patients were male veterans with T2DM, and most were older (range, 50-89 years). This limits the generalizability to women, younger patients, and people with type 1 DM. Additionally, our data collection relied on completion and collection of the preoperative form by different HCPs, allowing for sampling bias if some patients with DM undergoing elective noncardiac surgery were missed. Furthermore, although we could verify HCP adherence to the preoperative DM management protocols by reviewing their written instructions, we relied on patients’ self-reported adherence to the preoperative instructions. Finally, we did not evaluate postoperative blood glucose levels because the effect of intraoperative factors such as fluid, insulin, and glucocorticoid administration on postoperative glucose levels are variable. To the best of our knowledge, no other major systematic changes occurred in the preoperative care of patients with DM during the study period.

Conclusions

The findings of our QI initiative suggest that HCP adherence to preoperative DM management protocols may be a key contributor to DOS hyperglycemia and that ensuring HCP adherence may be as important as preoperative insulin dose adjustments. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report rates of HCP adherence to preoperative DM management protocols and its effect on DOS hyperglycemia. We will focus future QI efforts on optimizing HCP adherence to preoperative DM management protocols at our institution.

Acknowledgments

We thank our endocrinology expert, Dr. Kristina Utzschneider, for her guidance in designing this improvement project and our academic research coach, Dr. Helene Starks, for her help in editing the manuscript.

Perioperative hyperglycemia, defined as blood glucose levels ≥ 180 mg/dL in the immediate pre- and postoperative period, is associated with increased postoperative morbidity, including infections, preoperative interventions, and in-hospital mortality.^1-3 Despite being identified as a barrier to optimal perioperative glycemic control, limited evidence is available on patient or health care practitioner (HCP) adherence to preoperative insulin protocols.^4-6

Background

Despite mounting evidence of the advantages of maintaining perioperative glucose levels between 80 and 180 mg/dL, available guidelines vary in their recommendations for long-acting basal insulin dosing.^7-10 The Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia suggests using 100% of the prescribed evening dosage of long-acting basal insulin dose on the night before surgery in patients without a history of nocturnal or morning hypoglycemia (category 2A evidence).⁹ However, the revised 2016 United Kingdom National Health Service consensus guideline recommends using 80% to 100% of the prescribed evening dosage of long-acting basal insulin dose on the night before surgery.⁷ The 2022 American Diabetes Association references an observational study of patients with type 2 DM (T2DM) treated with evening-only, long-acting glargine insulin, indicating that the optimal basal insulin dose on the evening before surgery is about 75% of the outpatient dose.^5,10 However, in a randomized, prospective open trial of patients with DM treated with evening-only long-acting basal insulin, no significant difference was noted in the target day of surgery (DOS) glucose levels among different dosing strategies on the evening before surgery.⁶ Presently, the optimal dose of long-acting insulin analogs on the evening before surgery is unknown.

Additionally, little is known about the other factors that influence perioperative glycemic control. Several barriers to optimal perioperative care of patients with DM have been identified, including lack of prioritization by HCPs, lack of knowledge about current evidence-based recommendations, and lack of patient information and involvement.⁴ To determine the effect of patient adherence to preoperative medication instructions on postoperative outcome, a cross-sectional study assessed surgical patients admitted to the postanesthetic care unit (PACU) and found that only 70% of patients with insulin-treated DM took their medications preoperatively. Additionally, 23% of nonadherent patients who omitted their medications either did not understand or forgot preoperative medication management instructions. Preoperative DM medication omission was associated with higher rates of hyperglycemia in the PACU (23.8% vs 3.6%; P = .02).¹¹ Importantly, to our knowledge, the extent of HCP adherence to DM management protocols and the subsequent effect on DOS hyperglycemia has not been examined until now.For patients with DM treated with an evening dose of long-acting basal insulin (ie, either once-daily long-acting basal insulin in the evening or twice-daily long-acting basal insulin, both morning and evening) presenting for elective noncardiac surgery, our aim was to decrease the rate of DOS hyperglycemia from 29% (our baseline) to 15% by intensifying the dose of insulin on the evening before surgery without increasing the rate of hypoglycemia. We also sought to determine the rates of HCP adherence to our insulin protocols as well as patients’ self-reported adherence to HCP instructions over the course of this quality improvement (QI) initiative.

Quality Improvement Program

Our surgical department consists of 11 surgical subspecialties that performed approximately 4400 noncardiac surgeries in 2019. All patients undergoing elective surgery are evaluated in the preoperative clinic, which is staffed by an anesthesiology professional (attending and resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) and internal medicine attending physicians. At the preoperative visit, each patient is evaluated by anesthesiology; medically complex patients may also be referred to an internal medicine professional for further risk stratification and optimization before surgery.

At the preoperative clinic visit, HCPs prepare written patient instructions for the preoperative management of medications, including glucose-lowering medications, based on a DM management protocol that was implemented in 2016 for the preoperative management of insulin, noninsulin injectable agents, and oral hyperglycemic agents. According to this protocol, patients with DM treated with evening long-acting basal insulin (eg, glargine insulin) are instructed to take 50% of their usual evening dose the evening before surgery. A preoperative clinic nurse reviews the final preoperative medication instructions with the patient at the end of the clinic visit. Patients are also instructed to avoid oral intake other than water and necessary medications after midnight before surgery regardless of the time of surgery. On the DOS, the patient’s blood glucose level is measured on arrival to the presurgical area.

Our QI initiative focused only on the dose of self-administered, long-acting basal insulin on the evening before surgery. The effect of the morning of surgery long-acting insulin dose on the DOS glucose levels largely depends on the timing of surgery, which is variable; therefore, we did not target this dose for our initiative. Patients receiving intermediate-acting neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin were excluded because our protocol does not recommend a dose reduction for NPH insulin on the evening before surgery.

We developed a comprehensive driver diagram to help elucidate the different factors contributing to DOS hyperglycemia and to guide specific QI interventions.¹² Some of the identified contributors to DOS hyperglycemia, such as the length of preoperative fasting and timing of surgery, are unpredictable and were deemed difficult to address preoperatively. Other contributors to DOS hyperglycemia, such as outpatient DM management, often require interventions over several months, which is well beyond the time usually allotted for preoperative evaluation and optimization. On the other hand, immediate preoperative insulin dosing directly affects DOS glycemic control; therefore, improvement of the preoperative insulin management protocol to optimize the dosage on the evening before surgery was considered to be an achievable QI goal with the potential for decreasing the rate of DOS hyperglycemia in patients presenting for elective noncardiac surgery.

We used the Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ) as a framework to identify key contextual factors that may affect the success of our QI project.¹³ Limited resource availability and difficulty with dissemination of protocol changes in the preoperative clinic were determined to be potential barriers to the successful implementation of our QI initiative. Nonetheless, senior leadership support, microsystem QI culture, QI team skills, and physician involvement supported the implementation. The revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) guidelines were followed for this study.¹⁴

Interventions

With stakeholder input from anesthesiology, internal medicine, endocrinology, and nursing, we designed an intervention to iteratively change the HCP protocol instructions for long-acting insulin dosing on the evening before surgery. In phase 1 of the study (October 1, 2018, to March 11, 2019), we obtained baseline data on the rates of DOS hyperglycemia (blood glucose ≥ 180 mg/dL) and hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 80 mg/dL), as well as patient and HCP adherence rates to our existing preoperative DM protocol. For phase 2 (March 12, 2019, to July 22, 2019), the preoperative DM management protocol was changed to increase the dose of long-acting basal insulin on the evening before surgery for patients with hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) levels > 8% from 50% of the usual outpatient dose to 100%. Finally, in phase 3 (July 23, 2019, to March 12, 2020), the protocol was changed to increase the dose of long-acting basal insulin on the evening before surgery for patients with HbA_1c levels ≤ 8% from 50% of the usual outpatient dose to 75% while sustaining the phase 2 change. Preoperative HCPs were informed of the protocol changes in person and were provided with electronic and hard copies of each new protocol.

Protocol

We used a prospective cohort design of 424 consecutive patients with DM who presented for preoperative evaluation for elective noncardiac surgery between October 1, 2018, and March 12, 2020. For the subset of 195 patients treated with an evening dose of long-acting basal insulin, we examined the effect of intensification of this preoperative basal insulin dose on DOS hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, HCP adherence to iterative changes of the protocol, and patient adherence to HCP instructions on preoperative medication dosing. The QI project was concluded when elective surgeries were paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

We created a standardized preoperative data collection form that included information on the most recent HbA_1c, time, dose, and type of patient-administered insulin on the evening before surgery, and DOS blood glucose level. A preoperative clinic nurse completed the standardized preoperative data collection form. The HCP’s preoperative medication instructions and the preoperative data collection forms were gathered for review and data analysis.

The primary outcome was DOS hyperglycemia (blood glucose levels ≥ 180 mg/dL). We monitored the rate of DOS hypoglycemia (blood glucose levels < 80 mg/dL) as a balancing measure to ensure safety with long-acting basal insulin intensification. Although hypoglycemia is defined as a blood glucose level < 70 mg/dL, a target glucose range of 80 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL is recommended during the perioperative period.⁸ Therefore, we chose a more conservative definition of hypoglycemia (blood glucose levels < 80 mg/dL) to adhere to the recommended perioperative glucose target range.

Process measures included HCP adherence to each protocol change, which was assessed by comparing written preoperative patient instructions to the current protocol. Similarly, patient adherence to HCP-recommended long-acting basal insulin dosing was assessed by comparing written preoperative patient instructions to the patient’s self-reported time and dose of long-acting basal insulin on the evening before surgery. For any discrepancy between the HCP instructions and protocol or HCP-recommended dose and patient self-reported dose of long-acting basal insulin, a detailed chart review was performed to determine the etiology.

Statistical Analysis

We used the statistical process p-control chart to assess the effect of iterative changes to the preoperative long-acting basal insulin protocol on DOS hyperglycemia. The proportion defective (rate of DOS hyperglycemia) was plotted against time to determine whether the observed variations in the rate of DOS hyperglycemia over time were attributable to random common causes or special causes because of our intervention. The lower control limit (LCL) and upper control limit (UCL) define the limits of expected outcome measures in a stable process prior to introducing changes and were set at 3 SDs from the mean to balance the likelihood of type I (false-positive) and type II (false-negative) errors. Because of the variable interval sample sizes, we used the CRITBINOM function of Microsoft Excel to calculate the exact UCL satisfying the 3 SD limits of 0.99865.¹⁵ The Shewhart rules (outliers, runs or shifts, trends, sawtooth) were used to analyze the p-control chart to identify special cause signals resulting from our interventions.¹⁶ We used the statistical process t-control chart to record the time (days) between the few occurrences of DOS hypoglycemia because cases of hypoglycemia were rare.

Ethical Consideration

The Human Research Protection Program, Associate Chief of Staff for Research and Development, and Quality, Safety, and Values department reviewed this project in accordance with the Veterans Health Administration Program Guide 1200.21 and determined that it was a nonresearch operations activity; thus, approval by an institutional review board was not needed. The authors declare no competing interests.

Patient Outcomes

We prospectively followed 424 consecutive patients with DM undergoing elective noncardiac surgery from the time of the preoperative clinic evaluation until DOS; 195 patients were on evening

A subgroup analysis of DOS glucose levels in insulin-treated patients with preoperative HbA_1c levels > 8% did not demonstrate a change in the rate of

Discussion

The management and prevention of immediate perioperative hyperglycemia and glycemic variability have attracted attention as evidence has mounted for their association with postoperative morbidity and mortality.^1,2,17 Available guidelines for preventing DOS hyperglycemia vary in their recommendations for preoperative insulin management.^7-10 Notably, concerns about iatrogenic hypoglycemia often hinder efforts to lower rates of DOS hyperglycemia.⁴ We successfully implemented an iterative intensification protocol for preoperative long-acting basal insulin doses on the evening before surgery but did not observe a lower rate of hyperglycemia. Importantly, we also did not observe a higher rate of hypoglycemia on the DOS, as observed in a previous study.⁵

The observational study by Demma and colleagues found that patients receiving 75% of their evening, long-acting basal insulin dose were significantly more likely to achieve target blood glucose levels of 100 to 180 mg/dL than patients receiving no insulin at all (78% vs 0%; P = .001). However, no significant difference was noted when this group was compared with patients receiving 50% of their evening, long-acting basal insulin doses (78% vs 70%; P = .56). This is more clinically pertinent as it is generally accepted that the evening, long-acting insulin dose should not be entirely withheld on the evening before surgery.⁵

These findings are consistent with our observation that the rate of DOS hyperglycemia did not decrease with intensification of the evening, long-acting insulin dose from 50% to 100% of the prescribed dose in patients with HbA_1c levels > 8% (phase 2) and 50% to 75% of the prescribed dose in patients with HbA_1c levels ≤ 8% (phase 3). In the study by Demma and colleagues, few patients presented with preoperative hypoglycemia (2.7%) but all had received 100% of their evening, long-acting basal insulin dose, suggesting a significant increase in the rate of hypoglycemia compared with patients receiving lower doses of insulin (P = .01).⁵ However, long-term DM control as assessed by HbA_1c level was available for < 10% of the patients, making it difficult to evaluate the effect of overall DM control on the results.⁵ In our study, preoperative HbA_1c levels were available for 99.5% of the patients and only those with HbA_1c levels > 8% received 100% of their evening, long-acting insulin dose on the evening before surgery. Notably, we did not observe a higher rate of hypoglycemia in this patient population, indicating that preoperative insulin dose intensification is safe for this subgroup.

Although HCP adherence to perioperative DM management protocols has been identified as a predominant barrier to the delivery of optimal perioperative DM care, prior studies of various preoperative insulin protocols to reduce perioperative hyperglycemia have not reported HCP adherence to their insulin protocols or its effect on DOS hyperglycemia.^4-6 Additionally, patient adherence to HCP instructions is a key factor identified in our driver diagram that may influence DOS hyperglycemia, a hypothesis that is supported by a prior cross-sectional study showing an increased rate of hyperglycemia in the PACU with omission of preoperative DM medication.¹¹ In our study, patient adherence to preoperative medication management instructions was higher than reported previously and remained consistently high regardless of protocol changes, which may explain why patient adherence did not affect the rate of DOS hyperglycemia.

Although not part of our study protocol, our preoperative HCPs routinely prepare written patient instructions for the preoperative management of medications for all patients, which likely explains higher patient adherence to instructions in our study than seen in the previous study where written instructions were only encouraged.¹¹ However, HCP adherence to the protocol decreased after our phase 2 changes and was associated with a transient increase in DOS hyperglycemia rates. The DOS hyperglycemia rates returned to baseline levels with ongoing QI efforts and education to improve HCP adherence to protocol.

Limitations

Our QI initiative had several limitations. Nearly all patients were male veterans with T2DM, and most were older (range, 50-89 years). This limits the generalizability to women, younger patients, and people with type 1 DM. Additionally, our data collection relied on completion and collection of the preoperative form by different HCPs, allowing for sampling bias if some patients with DM undergoing elective noncardiac surgery were missed. Furthermore, although we could verify HCP adherence to the preoperative DM management protocols by reviewing their written instructions, we relied on patients’ self-reported adherence to the preoperative instructions. Finally, we did not evaluate postoperative blood glucose levels because the effect of intraoperative factors such as fluid, insulin, and glucocorticoid administration on postoperative glucose levels are variable. To the best of our knowledge, no other major systematic changes occurred in the preoperative care of patients with DM during the study period.

Conclusions

The findings of our QI initiative suggest that HCP adherence to preoperative DM management protocols may be a key contributor to DOS hyperglycemia and that ensuring HCP adherence may be as important as preoperative insulin dose adjustments. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report rates of HCP adherence to preoperative DM management protocols and its effect on DOS hyperglycemia. We will focus future QI efforts on optimizing HCP adherence to preoperative DM management protocols at our institution.

Acknowledgments

We thank our endocrinology expert, Dr. Kristina Utzschneider, for her guidance in designing this improvement project and our academic research coach, Dr. Helene Starks, for her help in editing the manuscript.

Prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stays, variably defined as > 48 h to > 14 days, are a known complication of cardiac surgery.^1-8 Prolonged stays are associated with higher resource utilization and higher mortality.^2,3,9-12 Although there are several cardiac surgery risk models that can be used preoperatively to identify patients at risk for prolonged ICU stay, factors that influence outcomes for patients who experience prolonged ICU stays are poorly understood.^2,13-19 Little information is available to inform discussions between health care practitioners (HCPs) and patients throughout a prolonged ICU stay, especially those ≥ 7 days.

As cardiac surgical complexity, patient age, and preexisting comorbidities have increased over time, so has the need to provide patients and HCPs with data to inform decision making, enhance prognostication, and set realistic expectations at varying time intervals during prolonged ICU stay. The purpose of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes in cardiac surgery patients after prolonged ICU stays at relevant time intervals (7, 14, 21, and 28 days) and to determine factors that may predict a patient’s outcome after a prolonged ICU stay.

Methods

The University of Michigan Health System Institutional Review Board approved this study and waived informed consent. We merged the University of Michigan Medical Center Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database, which is updated periodically with late mortality, with elements of the electronic health record (EHR). Adult patients were included if they had cardiac surgery at the University of Michigan between January 2, 2001, and December 31, 2011. Late mortality was updated through December 1, 2014. Data are presented as frequency (%), mean (SD), and median (IQR) as appropriate. Bivariate comparisons between survivors and nonsurvivors were done with χ² or Fisher exact test for categorical data, Student t test for continuous normally distributed data, and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous not normally distributed data. To determine factors associated with operative mortality (death within 30 days of surgery or hospital discharge, whichever occurred later), we used logistic regression with forward selection. All available factors were initially entered in the models.

Separate logistic models were created based on all data available at days 7, 14, 21, and 28. Final models consisted of factors with statistically significant P values (< .05) and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% CIs that excluded 1. To determine factors associated with late mortality, we used a Cox proportional hazard model, which used data available at discharge and STS complications. As these complications did not include their timing, they could only be used in models created at discharge and not for days 7, 14, 21, and 28 models. Final models consisted of factors with P values < .05 and 95% CIs of the AORs or the hazard ratios (HRs) that excluded 1. As the EHR did not start recording data until January 2, 2004, and its capture of data remained incomplete for several years, rather than imputing these missing data or excluding these patients, we chose to create an extra categorical level for each factor to represent missing data. For continuous factors with missing data, we first converted the continuous data to terciles and the missing data became the fourth level.^20,21

The discrimination of the logistic models were determined by the c-statistic and for the Cox proportional hazards model with the Harrell concordance index (C index). Time trends were assessed with the Cochran-Armitage trend test. P < .05 was deemed statistically significant. Statistics were calculated with SPSS versions 21-23 or SAS 9.4.

Results

Of 8309 admissions to the ICU after cardiac surgery, 1174 (14%) had ICU stays ≥ 7 days, 386 (5%) ≥ 14 days, 201 (2%) ≥ 21 days, and 80 (0.9%) ≥ 28 days. The prolonged ICU study population was mostly male, White race, with a mean (SD) age of 62 (14) years. Patients had a variety of comorbidities, most notably 61% had hypertension and half had heart failure. Valve surgery (55%) was the most common procedure (n = 651). Twenty-nine percent required > 1 procedure (eAppendix 1).

The operative mortality

Using multivariable logistic regression to adjust for factors associated with mortality, we found that receiving mechanical ventilation on the day of analysis was associated with increased operative mortality with AOR increasing from 3.35 (95% CI, 2.82-3.98) for

Discussion

We found that operative mortality increased the longer the patient stayed in the ICU, ranging from 11% for ≥ 7 days to 35% for ≥ 28 days. We further found that in ICU survivors, median (IQR) survival was 10.7 (0.7) years. While previous studies have evaluated prolonged ICU stays, they have been limited by studying limited subpopulations, such as patients who are dependent on dialysis or octogenarians, or used a single cutoff to define prolonged ICU stays, variably defined from > 48 hours to > 14 days.^2-7,9-12,22 Our study is similar to others that used ≥ 2 cutoffs.^1,8 However, our study was novel by providing 4 cutoffs to improve temporal prediction of hospital outcomes. Unlike a study by Ryan and colleagues, which found no increase in mortality with longer stay (43.5% for ≥ 14 days and 45% for ≥ 28 days), our study findings are similar to those of Yu and colleagues (11.1% mortality for prolonged ICU stays of 1 to 2 weeks, 26.6% for 2 to 4 weeks, and 31% for > 4 weeks) and others (8%, 3 to 14 days; 40%, >14 days; 10%, 1 to 2 weeks; 25.7% > 2 weeks) in finding a progressively increased hospital mortality with longer ICU stays.^1,4,5,8 These differences may be related to different ICU populations or to improvements in care since Ryan and colleagues study was conducted.

Fewer studies have evaluated factors associated with mortality in cardiac surgery prolonged ICU stay patients. Our study is similar to other studies that evaluated risk factors by finding associations between a variety of comorbidities and process of care associated with both operative and long-term mortality; however, comparison between these studies is limited by the varying factors analyzed.^{1,3,5,6,8,9,11} We found that mechanical ventilation on days 7, 14, 21, and 28 was strongly associated with operative mortality, similar to noncardiac surgery patients and cardiac surgery patients.^6,23,24 While we found several processes of care, such as catecholamine use and transfusions to be associated with mortality, which is similar to other studies, notably, we did not find an association between renal replacement therapy and mortality.^1,25 While there is an association between renal replacement therapy and mortality in ICU patients, its status in cardiac surgery patients with prolonged ICU stays is less clear.²⁶ While Ryan and colleagues found an association between renal replacement therapy and hospital mortality in patients staying ≥ 14 days, they did not find it in patients staying ≥.

28 days.¹ Other studies of prolonged ICU stays for cardiac surgery patients have also failed to find an association between renal replacement therapy and mortality.^5,6,9 Importantly, practice that expedites liberation from mechanical ventilation, such as fast tracking, daily spontaneous breathing trials, extubation to noninvasive respiratory support, and pulmonary rehabilitation may all have potential to limit mechanical ventilation duration and improve hospital survival and deserve further study.^27-29Median (IQR) survival in hospital survivors was 10.7 (0.7) years, which is generally better than previously reported, but similar to that reported by Silberman and colleagues.^{2,4,6,8,11,12} Differences between these studies may relate to different patient populations within the cardiac surgery ICUs, definitions of prolonged ICU stays, or eras of care. Further study is needed to clarify these discrepancies. We found that cardiac transplantation and obesity were associated with the least risk of dying, while smoking, lung disease, and postoperative pneumonia were independently associated with increased hazard of dying. The obesity paradox, where obesity is protective, has been previously observed in cardiac surgery patients.³⁰

Strengths and Limitations

There are several limitations of this study. This is a single center study, and our patient population and processes of care may differ from other centers, limiting its generalizability. Notably, we do fewer coronary bypass operations and more aortic reconstructions and ventricular assist device insertions than do many other centers. Second, we did not have laboratory values for about one-third of patients (preceded EHR implementation). However, we were able to compensate for this by binning values and including missing data as an extra bin.^20,21

The main strength of this study is that we were able to combine disparate records to assess a large number of potential factors associated with both operative and long-term mortality. This produced models that had good to very good discrimination. By producing models at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days to predict operative mortality and a model at discharge, it may help to provide objective data to facilitate conversations with patients and their families. However, further studies to externally validate these models should be conducted.

Conclusions

We found that longer prolonged ICU stays are associated with both operative and late mortality. Receiving mechanical ventilation on days 7, 14, 21, or 28 was strongly associated with operative mortality.

Prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stays, variably defined as > 48 h to > 14 days, are a known complication of cardiac surgery.^1-8 Prolonged stays are associated with higher resource utilization and higher mortality.^2,3,9-12 Although there are several cardiac surgery risk models that can be used preoperatively to identify patients at risk for prolonged ICU stay, factors that influence outcomes for patients who experience prolonged ICU stays are poorly understood.^2,13-19 Little information is available to inform discussions between health care practitioners (HCPs) and patients throughout a prolonged ICU stay, especially those ≥ 7 days.

As cardiac surgical complexity, patient age, and preexisting comorbidities have increased over time, so has the need to provide patients and HCPs with data to inform decision making, enhance prognostication, and set realistic expectations at varying time intervals during prolonged ICU stay. The purpose of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes in cardiac surgery patients after prolonged ICU stays at relevant time intervals (7, 14, 21, and 28 days) and to determine factors that may predict a patient’s outcome after a prolonged ICU stay.

Methods

The University of Michigan Health System Institutional Review Board approved this study and waived informed consent. We merged the University of Michigan Medical Center Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database, which is updated periodically with late mortality, with elements of the electronic health record (EHR). Adult patients were included if they had cardiac surgery at the University of Michigan between January 2, 2001, and December 31, 2011. Late mortality was updated through December 1, 2014. Data are presented as frequency (%), mean (SD), and median (IQR) as appropriate. Bivariate comparisons between survivors and nonsurvivors were done with χ² or Fisher exact test for categorical data, Student t test for continuous normally distributed data, and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous not normally distributed data. To determine factors associated with operative mortality (death within 30 days of surgery or hospital discharge, whichever occurred later), we used logistic regression with forward selection. All available factors were initially entered in the models.

Separate logistic models were created based on all data available at days 7, 14, 21, and 28. Final models consisted of factors with statistically significant P values (< .05) and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% CIs that excluded 1. To determine factors associated with late mortality, we used a Cox proportional hazard model, which used data available at discharge and STS complications. As these complications did not include their timing, they could only be used in models created at discharge and not for days 7, 14, 21, and 28 models. Final models consisted of factors with P values < .05 and 95% CIs of the AORs or the hazard ratios (HRs) that excluded 1. As the EHR did not start recording data until January 2, 2004, and its capture of data remained incomplete for several years, rather than imputing these missing data or excluding these patients, we chose to create an extra categorical level for each factor to represent missing data. For continuous factors with missing data, we first converted the continuous data to terciles and the missing data became the fourth level.^20,21

The discrimination of the logistic models were determined by the c-statistic and for the Cox proportional hazards model with the Harrell concordance index (C index). Time trends were assessed with the Cochran-Armitage trend test. P < .05 was deemed statistically significant. Statistics were calculated with SPSS versions 21-23 or SAS 9.4.

Results

Of 8309 admissions to the ICU after cardiac surgery, 1174 (14%) had ICU stays ≥ 7 days, 386 (5%) ≥ 14 days, 201 (2%) ≥ 21 days, and 80 (0.9%) ≥ 28 days. The prolonged ICU study population was mostly male, White race, with a mean (SD) age of 62 (14) years. Patients had a variety of comorbidities, most notably 61% had hypertension and half had heart failure. Valve surgery (55%) was the most common procedure (n = 651). Twenty-nine percent required > 1 procedure (eAppendix 1).

The operative mortality

Using multivariable logistic regression to adjust for factors associated with mortality, we found that receiving mechanical ventilation on the day of analysis was associated with increased operative mortality with AOR increasing from 3.35 (95% CI, 2.82-3.98) for

Discussion

We found that operative mortality increased the longer the patient stayed in the ICU, ranging from 11% for ≥ 7 days to 35% for ≥ 28 days. We further found that in ICU survivors, median (IQR) survival was 10.7 (0.7) years. While previous studies have evaluated prolonged ICU stays, they have been limited by studying limited subpopulations, such as patients who are dependent on dialysis or octogenarians, or used a single cutoff to define prolonged ICU stays, variably defined from > 48 hours to > 14 days.^2-7,9-12,22 Our study is similar to others that used ≥ 2 cutoffs.^1,8 However, our study was novel by providing 4 cutoffs to improve temporal prediction of hospital outcomes. Unlike a study by Ryan and colleagues, which found no increase in mortality with longer stay (43.5% for ≥ 14 days and 45% for ≥ 28 days), our study findings are similar to those of Yu and colleagues (11.1% mortality for prolonged ICU stays of 1 to 2 weeks, 26.6% for 2 to 4 weeks, and 31% for > 4 weeks) and others (8%, 3 to 14 days; 40%, >14 days; 10%, 1 to 2 weeks; 25.7% > 2 weeks) in finding a progressively increased hospital mortality with longer ICU stays.^1,4,5,8 These differences may be related to different ICU populations or to improvements in care since Ryan and colleagues study was conducted.

Fewer studies have evaluated factors associated with mortality in cardiac surgery prolonged ICU stay patients. Our study is similar to other studies that evaluated risk factors by finding associations between a variety of comorbidities and process of care associated with both operative and long-term mortality; however, comparison between these studies is limited by the varying factors analyzed.^{1,3,5,6,8,9,11} We found that mechanical ventilation on days 7, 14, 21, and 28 was strongly associated with operative mortality, similar to noncardiac surgery patients and cardiac surgery patients.^6,23,24 While we found several processes of care, such as catecholamine use and transfusions to be associated with mortality, which is similar to other studies, notably, we did not find an association between renal replacement therapy and mortality.^1,25 While there is an association between renal replacement therapy and mortality in ICU patients, its status in cardiac surgery patients with prolonged ICU stays is less clear.²⁶ While Ryan and colleagues found an association between renal replacement therapy and hospital mortality in patients staying ≥ 14 days, they did not find it in patients staying ≥.

28 days.¹ Other studies of prolonged ICU stays for cardiac surgery patients have also failed to find an association between renal replacement therapy and mortality.^5,6,9 Importantly, practice that expedites liberation from mechanical ventilation, such as fast tracking, daily spontaneous breathing trials, extubation to noninvasive respiratory support, and pulmonary rehabilitation may all have potential to limit mechanical ventilation duration and improve hospital survival and deserve further study.^27-29Median (IQR) survival in hospital survivors was 10.7 (0.7) years, which is generally better than previously reported, but similar to that reported by Silberman and colleagues.^{2,4,6,8,11,12} Differences between these studies may relate to different patient populations within the cardiac surgery ICUs, definitions of prolonged ICU stays, or eras of care. Further study is needed to clarify these discrepancies. We found that cardiac transplantation and obesity were associated with the least risk of dying, while smoking, lung disease, and postoperative pneumonia were independently associated with increased hazard of dying. The obesity paradox, where obesity is protective, has been previously observed in cardiac surgery patients.³⁰

Strengths and Limitations

There are several limitations of this study. This is a single center study, and our patient population and processes of care may differ from other centers, limiting its generalizability. Notably, we do fewer coronary bypass operations and more aortic reconstructions and ventricular assist device insertions than do many other centers. Second, we did not have laboratory values for about one-third of patients (preceded EHR implementation). However, we were able to compensate for this by binning values and including missing data as an extra bin.^20,21

The main strength of this study is that we were able to combine disparate records to assess a large number of potential factors associated with both operative and long-term mortality. This produced models that had good to very good discrimination. By producing models at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days to predict operative mortality and a model at discharge, it may help to provide objective data to facilitate conversations with patients and their families. However, further studies to externally validate these models should be conducted.

Conclusions

We found that longer prolonged ICU stays are associated with both operative and late mortality. Receiving mechanical ventilation on days 7, 14, 21, or 28 was strongly associated with operative mortality.

Prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stays, variably defined as > 48 h to > 14 days, are a known complication of cardiac surgery.^1-8 Prolonged stays are associated with higher resource utilization and higher mortality.^2,3,9-12 Although there are several cardiac surgery risk models that can be used preoperatively to identify patients at risk for prolonged ICU stay, factors that influence outcomes for patients who experience prolonged ICU stays are poorly understood.^2,13-19 Little information is available to inform discussions between health care practitioners (HCPs) and patients throughout a prolonged ICU stay, especially those ≥ 7 days.

As cardiac surgical complexity, patient age, and preexisting comorbidities have increased over time, so has the need to provide patients and HCPs with data to inform decision making, enhance prognostication, and set realistic expectations at varying time intervals during prolonged ICU stay. The purpose of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes in cardiac surgery patients after prolonged ICU stays at relevant time intervals (7, 14, 21, and 28 days) and to determine factors that may predict a patient’s outcome after a prolonged ICU stay.

Methods

The University of Michigan Health System Institutional Review Board approved this study and waived informed consent. We merged the University of Michigan Medical Center Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database, which is updated periodically with late mortality, with elements of the electronic health record (EHR). Adult patients were included if they had cardiac surgery at the University of Michigan between January 2, 2001, and December 31, 2011. Late mortality was updated through December 1, 2014. Data are presented as frequency (%), mean (SD), and median (IQR) as appropriate. Bivariate comparisons between survivors and nonsurvivors were done with χ² or Fisher exact test for categorical data, Student t test for continuous normally distributed data, and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous not normally distributed data. To determine factors associated with operative mortality (death within 30 days of surgery or hospital discharge, whichever occurred later), we used logistic regression with forward selection. All available factors were initially entered in the models.

Separate logistic models were created based on all data available at days 7, 14, 21, and 28. Final models consisted of factors with statistically significant P values (< .05) and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% CIs that excluded 1. To determine factors associated with late mortality, we used a Cox proportional hazard model, which used data available at discharge and STS complications. As these complications did not include their timing, they could only be used in models created at discharge and not for days 7, 14, 21, and 28 models. Final models consisted of factors with P values < .05 and 95% CIs of the AORs or the hazard ratios (HRs) that excluded 1. As the EHR did not start recording data until January 2, 2004, and its capture of data remained incomplete for several years, rather than imputing these missing data or excluding these patients, we chose to create an extra categorical level for each factor to represent missing data. For continuous factors with missing data, we first converted the continuous data to terciles and the missing data became the fourth level.^20,21

The discrimination of the logistic models were determined by the c-statistic and for the Cox proportional hazards model with the Harrell concordance index (C index). Time trends were assessed with the Cochran-Armitage trend test. P < .05 was deemed statistically significant. Statistics were calculated with SPSS versions 21-23 or SAS 9.4.

Results

Of 8309 admissions to the ICU after cardiac surgery, 1174 (14%) had ICU stays ≥ 7 days, 386 (5%) ≥ 14 days, 201 (2%) ≥ 21 days, and 80 (0.9%) ≥ 28 days. The prolonged ICU study population was mostly male, White race, with a mean (SD) age of 62 (14) years. Patients had a variety of comorbidities, most notably 61% had hypertension and half had heart failure. Valve surgery (55%) was the most common procedure (n = 651). Twenty-nine percent required > 1 procedure (eAppendix 1).

The operative mortality

Using multivariable logistic regression to adjust for factors associated with mortality, we found that receiving mechanical ventilation on the day of analysis was associated with increased operative mortality with AOR increasing from 3.35 (95% CI, 2.82-3.98) for

Discussion

We found that operative mortality increased the longer the patient stayed in the ICU, ranging from 11% for ≥ 7 days to 35% for ≥ 28 days. We further found that in ICU survivors, median (IQR) survival was 10.7 (0.7) years. While previous studies have evaluated prolonged ICU stays, they have been limited by studying limited subpopulations, such as patients who are dependent on dialysis or octogenarians, or used a single cutoff to define prolonged ICU stays, variably defined from > 48 hours to > 14 days.^2-7,9-12,22 Our study is similar to others that used ≥ 2 cutoffs.^1,8 However, our study was novel by providing 4 cutoffs to improve temporal prediction of hospital outcomes. Unlike a study by Ryan and colleagues, which found no increase in mortality with longer stay (43.5% for ≥ 14 days and 45% for ≥ 28 days), our study findings are similar to those of Yu and colleagues (11.1% mortality for prolonged ICU stays of 1 to 2 weeks, 26.6% for 2 to 4 weeks, and 31% for > 4 weeks) and others (8%, 3 to 14 days; 40%, >14 days; 10%, 1 to 2 weeks; 25.7% > 2 weeks) in finding a progressively increased hospital mortality with longer ICU stays.^1,4,5,8 These differences may be related to different ICU populations or to improvements in care since Ryan and colleagues study was conducted.

Fewer studies have evaluated factors associated with mortality in cardiac surgery prolonged ICU stay patients. Our study is similar to other studies that evaluated risk factors by finding associations between a variety of comorbidities and process of care associated with both operative and long-term mortality; however, comparison between these studies is limited by the varying factors analyzed.^{1,3,5,6,8,9,11} We found that mechanical ventilation on days 7, 14, 21, and 28 was strongly associated with operative mortality, similar to noncardiac surgery patients and cardiac surgery patients.^6,23,24 While we found several processes of care, such as catecholamine use and transfusions to be associated with mortality, which is similar to other studies, notably, we did not find an association between renal replacement therapy and mortality.^1,25 While there is an association between renal replacement therapy and mortality in ICU patients, its status in cardiac surgery patients with prolonged ICU stays is less clear.²⁶ While Ryan and colleagues found an association between renal replacement therapy and hospital mortality in patients staying ≥ 14 days, they did not find it in patients staying ≥.

28 days.¹ Other studies of prolonged ICU stays for cardiac surgery patients have also failed to find an association between renal replacement therapy and mortality.^5,6,9 Importantly, practice that expedites liberation from mechanical ventilation, such as fast tracking, daily spontaneous breathing trials, extubation to noninvasive respiratory support, and pulmonary rehabilitation may all have potential to limit mechanical ventilation duration and improve hospital survival and deserve further study.^27-29Median (IQR) survival in hospital survivors was 10.7 (0.7) years, which is generally better than previously reported, but similar to that reported by Silberman and colleagues.^{2,4,6,8,11,12} Differences between these studies may relate to different patient populations within the cardiac surgery ICUs, definitions of prolonged ICU stays, or eras of care. Further study is needed to clarify these discrepancies. We found that cardiac transplantation and obesity were associated with the least risk of dying, while smoking, lung disease, and postoperative pneumonia were independently associated with increased hazard of dying. The obesity paradox, where obesity is protective, has been previously observed in cardiac surgery patients.³⁰

Strengths and Limitations

There are several limitations of this study. This is a single center study, and our patient population and processes of care may differ from other centers, limiting its generalizability. Notably, we do fewer coronary bypass operations and more aortic reconstructions and ventricular assist device insertions than do many other centers. Second, we did not have laboratory values for about one-third of patients (preceded EHR implementation). However, we were able to compensate for this by binning values and including missing data as an extra bin.^20,21

The main strength of this study is that we were able to combine disparate records to assess a large number of potential factors associated with both operative and long-term mortality. This produced models that had good to very good discrimination. By producing models at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days to predict operative mortality and a model at discharge, it may help to provide objective data to facilitate conversations with patients and their families. However, further studies to externally validate these models should be conducted.

Conclusions

We found that longer prolonged ICU stays are associated with both operative and late mortality. Receiving mechanical ventilation on days 7, 14, 21, or 28 was strongly associated with operative mortality.

CHICAGO – Treatment with the “twincretin” tirzepatide led to significant and potentially clinically meaningful cuts in 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure, compared with placebo, while causing modest increases in heart rate, in a prespecified substudy of the SURMOUNT-1 trial.

“The large effects on ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure raise the possibility that there may be important long-term benefits of [tirzepatide] on the complications of obesity,” said James A. de Lemos, MD, during a presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The findings are concordant with the [previously reported] office-based measurements, and the blood pressure reductions provide further evidence for the potential benefits of tirzepatide on cardiovascular health and outcomes,” said Dr. de Lemos, a cardiologist and professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The substudy included 600 of the 2,539 people enrolled in SURMOUNT-1, the first of two pivotal trials for tirzepatide (Mounjaro) in people without diabetes but with obesity or overweight (body mass index of 27-29 kg/m²) plus at least one weight-related complication. The primary endpoints of SURMOUNT-1 were the percent change in weight from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment with either of three different weekly injected doses of tirzepatide, compared with control subjects who received placebo, and the percentage of enrolled subjects achieving at least 5% loss in baseline weight, compared with the controls.

Tirzepatide treatment led to significant increases in both results, compared with controls, with the highest dose tested, 15 mg/week, resulting in an average 20.9% drop in weight from baseline after 72 weeks of treatment, and 91% of enrolled subjects on that dose achieving the 5% weight-loss threshold during the same time frame, in results published in 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

24-hour ambulatory pressures from 494 people

The substudy enrolled 600 of the SURMOUNT-1 participants and involved 24-hour ambulatory BP and heart rate measurements at entry and after 36 weeks on treatment. Full results were available for 494 of these people. The substudy included only study participants who entered with a BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg. Enrollment in SURMOUNT-1 overall excluded people with a BP of 160/100 mm Hg or higher. The average BP among all enrolled participants was about 123/80 mm Hg, while heart rates averaged about 73 beats per minute.

Systolic BP measured with the ambulatory monitor fell from baseline by an average of 5.6, 8.8, and 6.2 mm Hg in the people who received tirzepatide in weekly doses of 5, 10, or 15 mg, respectively, and rose by an average 1.8 mm Hg among the controls, Dr. de Lemos reported. Diastolic BP dropped among the tirzepatide recipients by an average of 1.5, 2.4, and 0.0 mm Hg in the three ascending tirzepatide treatment arms, and rose by an average 0.5 mm Hg among the controls. All of the differences between the intervention groups and the controls were significant except for the change in diastolic BP among participants who received 15 mg of tirzepatide weekly.

The results showed that 36 weeks on tirzepatide treatment was associated with “arguably clinically meaningful” reductions in systolic and diastolic BPs, Dr. de Lemos said. “There is a lot of optimism that this will translate into clinical benefits.” He also noted that, “within the limits of cross-study comparisons, the blood pressure changes look favorable, compared with the single-incretin mechanism GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists.”

Heart rate fell by an average 1.8 bpm in the controls, and rose by an average 0.3, 0.5, and 3.6 bpm among the three groups receiving ascending weekly tirzepatide doses, effects that were “consistent with what’s been seen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists,” noted Dr. de Lemos.

Tirzepatide is known as a “twincretin” because it shares this GLP-1 receptor agonism and also has a second incretin agonist activity, to the receptor for the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide.

Lowering of blood pressure plateaus

Changes in BP over time during the 72 weeks on treatment, data first presented in the original report, showed that average systolic pressure in the people who received tirzepatide fell sharply during the first 24 weeks on treatment, and then leveled out with little further change over time. Furthermore, all three tirzepatide doses produced roughly similar systolic BP reductions. Changes in diastolic pressure over time showed a mostly similar pattern of reduction, although a modest ongoing decrease in average diastolic pressure continued beyond 24 weeks.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This pattern of a plateau in BP reduction has been seen before in studies using other treatments to produce weight loss, including bariatric surgery, said Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not involved in SURMOUNT-1. He attributed the plateau in BP reduction among tirzepatide-treated people to them hitting a wall in their BP nadir based on homeostatic limits. Dr. Sattar noted that most enrolled participants had normal BPs at entry based on the reported study averages.

“It’s hard to go lower, but the blood pressure reduction may be larger in people who start at higher pressure levels,” Dr. Sattar said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Another inferred cap on BP reductions in the trial hypothesizes that the individual clinicians who managed the enrolled patients may have cut back on other BP-lowering agents as the pressures of the tirzepatide recipients fell to relatively low levels, suggested Darren McGuire, MD, a cardiologist and professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, who also was not involved in the SURMOUNT-1 study.
 

Incretin agonists as antihypertensive drugs

The substantial BP-lowering seen with tirzepatide, as well as with other incretin agonist agents, suggests a new way to think about BP control in people with overweight or obesity, Dr. Sattar said.

“Until now, we haven’t had tools where people lose so much weight. Now that we have these tools [incretin agonists as well as bariatric surgery], we see substantial blood pressure reductions. It makes you think we should use weight-loss agents to lower blood pressure rather than a beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; then we’d also produce all the other benefits from weight loss,” Dr. Sattar suggested.

Dr. de Lemos said he sees signals that the BP reductions caused by tirzepatide and the GLP-1 receptor agonists may go beyond just weight-loss effects.

“There appears to be a larger blood pressure reduction than anticipated based on the change in weight,” he said during his presentation. “GLP-1 is active in most vascular tissues, so these [receptor agonist] agents likely have vascular or cardiac effects, or even effects on other tissues that may affect blood pressure.”
 

Heart rate increases were usually modest

The experiences with GLP-1 receptor agonists also suggest that the heart rate increases seen with tirzepatide treatment in SURMOUNT-1 will not have long-term effects. “The [Food and Drug Administration] mandated this heart rate substudy to make sure that the increase in heart rate was not larger than what would be anticipated” with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, Dr. de Lemos explained.

SURMOUNT-1 had a treatment-stopping rule to prevent a person’s heart rate from rising beyond 10 bpm from baseline. “Trivial numbers” of patients experienced a heart rate increase of this magnitude, he said. If used in routine practice, Dr. de Lemos said that he would closely investigate a patient with a heart rate increase greater than 10 mm Hg. The average increase seen with the highest dose, about 4 bpm above baseline, would generally not be concerning.

Tirzepatide received U.S. marketing approval from the FDA in May 2022 for treating people with type 2 diabetes. In October 2022, the FDA gave tirzepatide “Fast Track” designation for the pending application for approval of an indication to treat people with overweight or obesity who match the entry criteria for SURMOUNT-1 and for the second pivotal trial for this indication, SURMOUNT-2. According to a statement from Eli Lilly, the company that is developing and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), the FDA’s decision on the obesity indication will remain pending until the SURMOUNT-2 results are available, which the company expects will occur in 2023.

SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 were sponsored by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide. Dr. de Lemos has been a consultant to Lilly as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Ortho, Quidel Cardiovascular, and Regeneron. Dr. Sattar has financial ties to Lilly, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hammi, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. McGuire has ties to Lilly as well as to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Lexicon, Merck, Metavant, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.

CHICAGO – Treatment with the “twincretin” tirzepatide led to significant and potentially clinically meaningful cuts in 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure, compared with placebo, while causing modest increases in heart rate, in a prespecified substudy of the SURMOUNT-1 trial.

“The large effects on ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure raise the possibility that there may be important long-term benefits of [tirzepatide] on the complications of obesity,” said James A. de Lemos, MD, during a presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The findings are concordant with the [previously reported] office-based measurements, and the blood pressure reductions provide further evidence for the potential benefits of tirzepatide on cardiovascular health and outcomes,” said Dr. de Lemos, a cardiologist and professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The substudy included 600 of the 2,539 people enrolled in SURMOUNT-1, the first of two pivotal trials for tirzepatide (Mounjaro) in people without diabetes but with obesity or overweight (body mass index of 27-29 kg/m²) plus at least one weight-related complication. The primary endpoints of SURMOUNT-1 were the percent change in weight from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment with either of three different weekly injected doses of tirzepatide, compared with control subjects who received placebo, and the percentage of enrolled subjects achieving at least 5% loss in baseline weight, compared with the controls.

Tirzepatide treatment led to significant increases in both results, compared with controls, with the highest dose tested, 15 mg/week, resulting in an average 20.9% drop in weight from baseline after 72 weeks of treatment, and 91% of enrolled subjects on that dose achieving the 5% weight-loss threshold during the same time frame, in results published in 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

24-hour ambulatory pressures from 494 people

The substudy enrolled 600 of the SURMOUNT-1 participants and involved 24-hour ambulatory BP and heart rate measurements at entry and after 36 weeks on treatment. Full results were available for 494 of these people. The substudy included only study participants who entered with a BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg. Enrollment in SURMOUNT-1 overall excluded people with a BP of 160/100 mm Hg or higher. The average BP among all enrolled participants was about 123/80 mm Hg, while heart rates averaged about 73 beats per minute.

Systolic BP measured with the ambulatory monitor fell from baseline by an average of 5.6, 8.8, and 6.2 mm Hg in the people who received tirzepatide in weekly doses of 5, 10, or 15 mg, respectively, and rose by an average 1.8 mm Hg among the controls, Dr. de Lemos reported. Diastolic BP dropped among the tirzepatide recipients by an average of 1.5, 2.4, and 0.0 mm Hg in the three ascending tirzepatide treatment arms, and rose by an average 0.5 mm Hg among the controls. All of the differences between the intervention groups and the controls were significant except for the change in diastolic BP among participants who received 15 mg of tirzepatide weekly.

The results showed that 36 weeks on tirzepatide treatment was associated with “arguably clinically meaningful” reductions in systolic and diastolic BPs, Dr. de Lemos said. “There is a lot of optimism that this will translate into clinical benefits.” He also noted that, “within the limits of cross-study comparisons, the blood pressure changes look favorable, compared with the single-incretin mechanism GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists.”

Heart rate fell by an average 1.8 bpm in the controls, and rose by an average 0.3, 0.5, and 3.6 bpm among the three groups receiving ascending weekly tirzepatide doses, effects that were “consistent with what’s been seen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists,” noted Dr. de Lemos.

Tirzepatide is known as a “twincretin” because it shares this GLP-1 receptor agonism and also has a second incretin agonist activity, to the receptor for the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide.

Lowering of blood pressure plateaus

Changes in BP over time during the 72 weeks on treatment, data first presented in the original report, showed that average systolic pressure in the people who received tirzepatide fell sharply during the first 24 weeks on treatment, and then leveled out with little further change over time. Furthermore, all three tirzepatide doses produced roughly similar systolic BP reductions. Changes in diastolic pressure over time showed a mostly similar pattern of reduction, although a modest ongoing decrease in average diastolic pressure continued beyond 24 weeks.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This pattern of a plateau in BP reduction has been seen before in studies using other treatments to produce weight loss, including bariatric surgery, said Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not involved in SURMOUNT-1. He attributed the plateau in BP reduction among tirzepatide-treated people to them hitting a wall in their BP nadir based on homeostatic limits. Dr. Sattar noted that most enrolled participants had normal BPs at entry based on the reported study averages.

“It’s hard to go lower, but the blood pressure reduction may be larger in people who start at higher pressure levels,” Dr. Sattar said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Another inferred cap on BP reductions in the trial hypothesizes that the individual clinicians who managed the enrolled patients may have cut back on other BP-lowering agents as the pressures of the tirzepatide recipients fell to relatively low levels, suggested Darren McGuire, MD, a cardiologist and professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, who also was not involved in the SURMOUNT-1 study.
 

Incretin agonists as antihypertensive drugs

The substantial BP-lowering seen with tirzepatide, as well as with other incretin agonist agents, suggests a new way to think about BP control in people with overweight or obesity, Dr. Sattar said.

“Until now, we haven’t had tools where people lose so much weight. Now that we have these tools [incretin agonists as well as bariatric surgery], we see substantial blood pressure reductions. It makes you think we should use weight-loss agents to lower blood pressure rather than a beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; then we’d also produce all the other benefits from weight loss,” Dr. Sattar suggested.

Dr. de Lemos said he sees signals that the BP reductions caused by tirzepatide and the GLP-1 receptor agonists may go beyond just weight-loss effects.

“There appears to be a larger blood pressure reduction than anticipated based on the change in weight,” he said during his presentation. “GLP-1 is active in most vascular tissues, so these [receptor agonist] agents likely have vascular or cardiac effects, or even effects on other tissues that may affect blood pressure.”
 

Heart rate increases were usually modest

The experiences with GLP-1 receptor agonists also suggest that the heart rate increases seen with tirzepatide treatment in SURMOUNT-1 will not have long-term effects. “The [Food and Drug Administration] mandated this heart rate substudy to make sure that the increase in heart rate was not larger than what would be anticipated” with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, Dr. de Lemos explained.

SURMOUNT-1 had a treatment-stopping rule to prevent a person’s heart rate from rising beyond 10 bpm from baseline. “Trivial numbers” of patients experienced a heart rate increase of this magnitude, he said. If used in routine practice, Dr. de Lemos said that he would closely investigate a patient with a heart rate increase greater than 10 mm Hg. The average increase seen with the highest dose, about 4 bpm above baseline, would generally not be concerning.

Tirzepatide received U.S. marketing approval from the FDA in May 2022 for treating people with type 2 diabetes. In October 2022, the FDA gave tirzepatide “Fast Track” designation for the pending application for approval of an indication to treat people with overweight or obesity who match the entry criteria for SURMOUNT-1 and for the second pivotal trial for this indication, SURMOUNT-2. According to a statement from Eli Lilly, the company that is developing and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), the FDA’s decision on the obesity indication will remain pending until the SURMOUNT-2 results are available, which the company expects will occur in 2023.

SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 were sponsored by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide. Dr. de Lemos has been a consultant to Lilly as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Ortho, Quidel Cardiovascular, and Regeneron. Dr. Sattar has financial ties to Lilly, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hammi, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. McGuire has ties to Lilly as well as to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Lexicon, Merck, Metavant, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.

CHICAGO – Treatment with the “twincretin” tirzepatide led to significant and potentially clinically meaningful cuts in 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure, compared with placebo, while causing modest increases in heart rate, in a prespecified substudy of the SURMOUNT-1 trial.

“The large effects on ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure raise the possibility that there may be important long-term benefits of [tirzepatide] on the complications of obesity,” said James A. de Lemos, MD, during a presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The findings are concordant with the [previously reported] office-based measurements, and the blood pressure reductions provide further evidence for the potential benefits of tirzepatide on cardiovascular health and outcomes,” said Dr. de Lemos, a cardiologist and professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The substudy included 600 of the 2,539 people enrolled in SURMOUNT-1, the first of two pivotal trials for tirzepatide (Mounjaro) in people without diabetes but with obesity or overweight (body mass index of 27-29 kg/m²) plus at least one weight-related complication. The primary endpoints of SURMOUNT-1 were the percent change in weight from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment with either of three different weekly injected doses of tirzepatide, compared with control subjects who received placebo, and the percentage of enrolled subjects achieving at least 5% loss in baseline weight, compared with the controls.

Tirzepatide treatment led to significant increases in both results, compared with controls, with the highest dose tested, 15 mg/week, resulting in an average 20.9% drop in weight from baseline after 72 weeks of treatment, and 91% of enrolled subjects on that dose achieving the 5% weight-loss threshold during the same time frame, in results published in 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

24-hour ambulatory pressures from 494 people

The substudy enrolled 600 of the SURMOUNT-1 participants and involved 24-hour ambulatory BP and heart rate measurements at entry and after 36 weeks on treatment. Full results were available for 494 of these people. The substudy included only study participants who entered with a BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg. Enrollment in SURMOUNT-1 overall excluded people with a BP of 160/100 mm Hg or higher. The average BP among all enrolled participants was about 123/80 mm Hg, while heart rates averaged about 73 beats per minute.

Systolic BP measured with the ambulatory monitor fell from baseline by an average of 5.6, 8.8, and 6.2 mm Hg in the people who received tirzepatide in weekly doses of 5, 10, or 15 mg, respectively, and rose by an average 1.8 mm Hg among the controls, Dr. de Lemos reported. Diastolic BP dropped among the tirzepatide recipients by an average of 1.5, 2.4, and 0.0 mm Hg in the three ascending tirzepatide treatment arms, and rose by an average 0.5 mm Hg among the controls. All of the differences between the intervention groups and the controls were significant except for the change in diastolic BP among participants who received 15 mg of tirzepatide weekly.

The results showed that 36 weeks on tirzepatide treatment was associated with “arguably clinically meaningful” reductions in systolic and diastolic BPs, Dr. de Lemos said. “There is a lot of optimism that this will translate into clinical benefits.” He also noted that, “within the limits of cross-study comparisons, the blood pressure changes look favorable, compared with the single-incretin mechanism GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists.”

Heart rate fell by an average 1.8 bpm in the controls, and rose by an average 0.3, 0.5, and 3.6 bpm among the three groups receiving ascending weekly tirzepatide doses, effects that were “consistent with what’s been seen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists,” noted Dr. de Lemos.

Tirzepatide is known as a “twincretin” because it shares this GLP-1 receptor agonism and also has a second incretin agonist activity, to the receptor for the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide.

Lowering of blood pressure plateaus

Changes in BP over time during the 72 weeks on treatment, data first presented in the original report, showed that average systolic pressure in the people who received tirzepatide fell sharply during the first 24 weeks on treatment, and then leveled out with little further change over time. Furthermore, all three tirzepatide doses produced roughly similar systolic BP reductions. Changes in diastolic pressure over time showed a mostly similar pattern of reduction, although a modest ongoing decrease in average diastolic pressure continued beyond 24 weeks.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This pattern of a plateau in BP reduction has been seen before in studies using other treatments to produce weight loss, including bariatric surgery, said Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not involved in SURMOUNT-1. He attributed the plateau in BP reduction among tirzepatide-treated people to them hitting a wall in their BP nadir based on homeostatic limits. Dr. Sattar noted that most enrolled participants had normal BPs at entry based on the reported study averages.

“It’s hard to go lower, but the blood pressure reduction may be larger in people who start at higher pressure levels,” Dr. Sattar said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Another inferred cap on BP reductions in the trial hypothesizes that the individual clinicians who managed the enrolled patients may have cut back on other BP-lowering agents as the pressures of the tirzepatide recipients fell to relatively low levels, suggested Darren McGuire, MD, a cardiologist and professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, who also was not involved in the SURMOUNT-1 study.
 

Incretin agonists as antihypertensive drugs

The substantial BP-lowering seen with tirzepatide, as well as with other incretin agonist agents, suggests a new way to think about BP control in people with overweight or obesity, Dr. Sattar said.

“Until now, we haven’t had tools where people lose so much weight. Now that we have these tools [incretin agonists as well as bariatric surgery], we see substantial blood pressure reductions. It makes you think we should use weight-loss agents to lower blood pressure rather than a beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; then we’d also produce all the other benefits from weight loss,” Dr. Sattar suggested.

Dr. de Lemos said he sees signals that the BP reductions caused by tirzepatide and the GLP-1 receptor agonists may go beyond just weight-loss effects.

“There appears to be a larger blood pressure reduction than anticipated based on the change in weight,” he said during his presentation. “GLP-1 is active in most vascular tissues, so these [receptor agonist] agents likely have vascular or cardiac effects, or even effects on other tissues that may affect blood pressure.”
 

Heart rate increases were usually modest

The experiences with GLP-1 receptor agonists also suggest that the heart rate increases seen with tirzepatide treatment in SURMOUNT-1 will not have long-term effects. “The [Food and Drug Administration] mandated this heart rate substudy to make sure that the increase in heart rate was not larger than what would be anticipated” with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, Dr. de Lemos explained.

SURMOUNT-1 had a treatment-stopping rule to prevent a person’s heart rate from rising beyond 10 bpm from baseline. “Trivial numbers” of patients experienced a heart rate increase of this magnitude, he said. If used in routine practice, Dr. de Lemos said that he would closely investigate a patient with a heart rate increase greater than 10 mm Hg. The average increase seen with the highest dose, about 4 bpm above baseline, would generally not be concerning.

Tirzepatide received U.S. marketing approval from the FDA in May 2022 for treating people with type 2 diabetes. In October 2022, the FDA gave tirzepatide “Fast Track” designation for the pending application for approval of an indication to treat people with overweight or obesity who match the entry criteria for SURMOUNT-1 and for the second pivotal trial for this indication, SURMOUNT-2. According to a statement from Eli Lilly, the company that is developing and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), the FDA’s decision on the obesity indication will remain pending until the SURMOUNT-2 results are available, which the company expects will occur in 2023.

SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 were sponsored by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide. Dr. de Lemos has been a consultant to Lilly as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Ortho, Quidel Cardiovascular, and Regeneron. Dr. Sattar has financial ties to Lilly, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hammi, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. McGuire has ties to Lilly as well as to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Lexicon, Merck, Metavant, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

A new U.S. randomized trial has failed to show benefit of a 35-day course of oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for the prevention of thrombotic events in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19.

The PREVENT-HD trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“With the caveat that the trial was underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, these data do not support routine antithrombotic prophylaxis in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19,” Dr. Piazza concluded.

PREVENT-HD is the largest randomized study to look at anticoagulation in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients and joins a long list of smaller trials that have also shown no benefit with this approach.

However, anticoagulation is recommended in patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19.

Dr. Piazza noted that the issue of anticoagulation in COVID-19 has focused mainly on hospitalized patients, but most COVID-19 cases are treated as outpatients, who are also suspected to be at risk for venous and arterial thrombotic events, especially if they have additional risk factors. Histopathological evidence also suggests that at least part of the deterioration in lung function leading to hospitalization may be attributable to in situ pulmonary artery thrombosis.

The PREVENT-HD trial explored the question of whether early initiation of thromboprophylaxis dosing of rivaroxaban in higher-risk outpatients with COVID-19 may lower the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events, reduce in situ pulmonary thrombosis and the worsening of pulmonary function that may lead to hospitalization, and reduce all-cause mortality.

The trial included 1,284 outpatients with a positive test for COVID-19 and who were within 14 days of symptom onset. They also had to have at least one of the following additional risk factors: age over 60 years; prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombophilia, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, cardiovascular disease or ischemic stroke, cancer, diabetes, heart failure, obesity (body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m²) or D-dimer > upper limit of normal. Around 35% of the study population had two or more of these risk factors.

Patients were randomized to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 35 days or placebo.

The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic VTE, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non–central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality up to day 35.

The primary safety endpoint was time to first occurrence of International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) critical-site and fatal bleeding.

A modified intention-to-treat analysis (all participants taking at least one dose of study intervention) was also planned.

The trial was stopped early in April this year because of a lower than expected event incidence (3.2%), compared with the planned rate (8.5%), giving a very low likelihood of being able to achieve the required number of events.

Dr. Piazza said reasons contributing to the low event rate included a falling COVID-19 death and hospitalization rate nationwide, and increased use of effective vaccines.

Results of the main intention-to-treat analysis (in 1,284 patients) showed no significant difference in the primary efficacy composite endpoint, which occurred in 3.4% of the rivaroxaban group versus 3.0% of the placebo group.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (which included 1,197 patients who actually took at least one dose of the study medication) there was shift in the directionality of the point estimate (rivaroxaban 2.0% vs. placebo 2.7%), which Dr. Piazza said was related to a higher number of patients hospitalized before receiving study drug in the rivaroxaban group. However, the difference was still nonsignificant. 

The first major secondary outcome of symptomatic VTE, arterial thrombotic events, and all-cause mortality occurred in 0.3% of rivaroxaban patients versus 1.1% of placebo patients, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.

However, a post hoc exploratory analysis did show a significant reduction in the outcome of symptomatic VTE and arterial thrombotic events. 

In terms of safety, there were no fatal critical-site bleeding events, and there was no difference in ISTH major bleeding, which occurred in one patient in the rivaroxaban group versus no patients in the placebo group.

There was, however, a significant increase in nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban, which occurred in nine patients (1.5%) versus one patient (0.2%) in the placebo group.

Trivial bleeding was also increased in the rivaroxaban group, occurring in 17 patients (2.8%) versus 5 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group.

Discussant for the study, Renato Lopes, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted that the relationship between COVID-19 and thrombosis has been an important issue since the beginning of the pandemic, with many proposed mechanisms to explain the COVID-19–associated coagulopathy, which is a major cause of death and disability.

While observational data at the beginning of the pandemic suggested patients with COVID-19 might benefit from anticoagulation, looking at all the different randomized trials that have tested anticoagulation in COVID-19 outpatients, there is no treatment effect on the various different primary outcomes in those studies and also no effect on all-cause mortality, Dr. Lopes said. 

He pointed out that PREVENT-HD was stopped prematurely with only about one-third of the planned number of patients enrolled, “just like every other outpatient COVID-19 trial.”

He also drew attention to the low rates of vaccination in the trial population, which does not reflect the current vaccination rate in the United States, and said the different direction of the results between the main intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat analyses deserve further investigation.

However, Dr. Lopes concluded, “The results of this trial, in line with the body of evidence in this field, do not support the routine use of any antithrombotic therapy for outpatients with COVID-19.”

The PREVENT-HD trial was sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Piazza has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen, and Boston Scientific, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Boston Scientific, Janssen, NAMSA, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Boston Clinical Research Institute, and Amgen.

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

A new U.S. randomized trial has failed to show benefit of a 35-day course of oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for the prevention of thrombotic events in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19.

The PREVENT-HD trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“With the caveat that the trial was underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, these data do not support routine antithrombotic prophylaxis in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19,” Dr. Piazza concluded.

PREVENT-HD is the largest randomized study to look at anticoagulation in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients and joins a long list of smaller trials that have also shown no benefit with this approach.

However, anticoagulation is recommended in patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19.

Dr. Piazza noted that the issue of anticoagulation in COVID-19 has focused mainly on hospitalized patients, but most COVID-19 cases are treated as outpatients, who are also suspected to be at risk for venous and arterial thrombotic events, especially if they have additional risk factors. Histopathological evidence also suggests that at least part of the deterioration in lung function leading to hospitalization may be attributable to in situ pulmonary artery thrombosis.

The PREVENT-HD trial explored the question of whether early initiation of thromboprophylaxis dosing of rivaroxaban in higher-risk outpatients with COVID-19 may lower the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events, reduce in situ pulmonary thrombosis and the worsening of pulmonary function that may lead to hospitalization, and reduce all-cause mortality.

The trial included 1,284 outpatients with a positive test for COVID-19 and who were within 14 days of symptom onset. They also had to have at least one of the following additional risk factors: age over 60 years; prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombophilia, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, cardiovascular disease or ischemic stroke, cancer, diabetes, heart failure, obesity (body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m²) or D-dimer > upper limit of normal. Around 35% of the study population had two or more of these risk factors.

Patients were randomized to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 35 days or placebo.

The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic VTE, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non–central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality up to day 35.

The primary safety endpoint was time to first occurrence of International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) critical-site and fatal bleeding.

A modified intention-to-treat analysis (all participants taking at least one dose of study intervention) was also planned.

The trial was stopped early in April this year because of a lower than expected event incidence (3.2%), compared with the planned rate (8.5%), giving a very low likelihood of being able to achieve the required number of events.

Dr. Piazza said reasons contributing to the low event rate included a falling COVID-19 death and hospitalization rate nationwide, and increased use of effective vaccines.

Results of the main intention-to-treat analysis (in 1,284 patients) showed no significant difference in the primary efficacy composite endpoint, which occurred in 3.4% of the rivaroxaban group versus 3.0% of the placebo group.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (which included 1,197 patients who actually took at least one dose of the study medication) there was shift in the directionality of the point estimate (rivaroxaban 2.0% vs. placebo 2.7%), which Dr. Piazza said was related to a higher number of patients hospitalized before receiving study drug in the rivaroxaban group. However, the difference was still nonsignificant. 

The first major secondary outcome of symptomatic VTE, arterial thrombotic events, and all-cause mortality occurred in 0.3% of rivaroxaban patients versus 1.1% of placebo patients, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.

However, a post hoc exploratory analysis did show a significant reduction in the outcome of symptomatic VTE and arterial thrombotic events. 

In terms of safety, there were no fatal critical-site bleeding events, and there was no difference in ISTH major bleeding, which occurred in one patient in the rivaroxaban group versus no patients in the placebo group.

There was, however, a significant increase in nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban, which occurred in nine patients (1.5%) versus one patient (0.2%) in the placebo group.

Trivial bleeding was also increased in the rivaroxaban group, occurring in 17 patients (2.8%) versus 5 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group.

Discussant for the study, Renato Lopes, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted that the relationship between COVID-19 and thrombosis has been an important issue since the beginning of the pandemic, with many proposed mechanisms to explain the COVID-19–associated coagulopathy, which is a major cause of death and disability.

While observational data at the beginning of the pandemic suggested patients with COVID-19 might benefit from anticoagulation, looking at all the different randomized trials that have tested anticoagulation in COVID-19 outpatients, there is no treatment effect on the various different primary outcomes in those studies and also no effect on all-cause mortality, Dr. Lopes said. 

He pointed out that PREVENT-HD was stopped prematurely with only about one-third of the planned number of patients enrolled, “just like every other outpatient COVID-19 trial.”

He also drew attention to the low rates of vaccination in the trial population, which does not reflect the current vaccination rate in the United States, and said the different direction of the results between the main intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat analyses deserve further investigation.

However, Dr. Lopes concluded, “The results of this trial, in line with the body of evidence in this field, do not support the routine use of any antithrombotic therapy for outpatients with COVID-19.”

The PREVENT-HD trial was sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Piazza has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen, and Boston Scientific, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Boston Scientific, Janssen, NAMSA, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Boston Clinical Research Institute, and Amgen.

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

A new U.S. randomized trial has failed to show benefit of a 35-day course of oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for the prevention of thrombotic events in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19.

The PREVENT-HD trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“With the caveat that the trial was underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, these data do not support routine antithrombotic prophylaxis in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19,” Dr. Piazza concluded.

PREVENT-HD is the largest randomized study to look at anticoagulation in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients and joins a long list of smaller trials that have also shown no benefit with this approach.

However, anticoagulation is recommended in patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19.

Dr. Piazza noted that the issue of anticoagulation in COVID-19 has focused mainly on hospitalized patients, but most COVID-19 cases are treated as outpatients, who are also suspected to be at risk for venous and arterial thrombotic events, especially if they have additional risk factors. Histopathological evidence also suggests that at least part of the deterioration in lung function leading to hospitalization may be attributable to in situ pulmonary artery thrombosis.

The PREVENT-HD trial explored the question of whether early initiation of thromboprophylaxis dosing of rivaroxaban in higher-risk outpatients with COVID-19 may lower the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events, reduce in situ pulmonary thrombosis and the worsening of pulmonary function that may lead to hospitalization, and reduce all-cause mortality.

The trial included 1,284 outpatients with a positive test for COVID-19 and who were within 14 days of symptom onset. They also had to have at least one of the following additional risk factors: age over 60 years; prior history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombophilia, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, cardiovascular disease or ischemic stroke, cancer, diabetes, heart failure, obesity (body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m²) or D-dimer > upper limit of normal. Around 35% of the study population had two or more of these risk factors.

Patients were randomized to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 35 days or placebo.

The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic VTE, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non–central nervous system systemic embolization, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality up to day 35.

The primary safety endpoint was time to first occurrence of International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) critical-site and fatal bleeding.

A modified intention-to-treat analysis (all participants taking at least one dose of study intervention) was also planned.

The trial was stopped early in April this year because of a lower than expected event incidence (3.2%), compared with the planned rate (8.5%), giving a very low likelihood of being able to achieve the required number of events.

Dr. Piazza said reasons contributing to the low event rate included a falling COVID-19 death and hospitalization rate nationwide, and increased use of effective vaccines.

Results of the main intention-to-treat analysis (in 1,284 patients) showed no significant difference in the primary efficacy composite endpoint, which occurred in 3.4% of the rivaroxaban group versus 3.0% of the placebo group.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (which included 1,197 patients who actually took at least one dose of the study medication) there was shift in the directionality of the point estimate (rivaroxaban 2.0% vs. placebo 2.7%), which Dr. Piazza said was related to a higher number of patients hospitalized before receiving study drug in the rivaroxaban group. However, the difference was still nonsignificant. 

The first major secondary outcome of symptomatic VTE, arterial thrombotic events, and all-cause mortality occurred in 0.3% of rivaroxaban patients versus 1.1% of placebo patients, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.

However, a post hoc exploratory analysis did show a significant reduction in the outcome of symptomatic VTE and arterial thrombotic events. 

In terms of safety, there were no fatal critical-site bleeding events, and there was no difference in ISTH major bleeding, which occurred in one patient in the rivaroxaban group versus no patients in the placebo group.

There was, however, a significant increase in nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban, which occurred in nine patients (1.5%) versus one patient (0.2%) in the placebo group.

Trivial bleeding was also increased in the rivaroxaban group, occurring in 17 patients (2.8%) versus 5 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group.

Discussant for the study, Renato Lopes, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted that the relationship between COVID-19 and thrombosis has been an important issue since the beginning of the pandemic, with many proposed mechanisms to explain the COVID-19–associated coagulopathy, which is a major cause of death and disability.

While observational data at the beginning of the pandemic suggested patients with COVID-19 might benefit from anticoagulation, looking at all the different randomized trials that have tested anticoagulation in COVID-19 outpatients, there is no treatment effect on the various different primary outcomes in those studies and also no effect on all-cause mortality, Dr. Lopes said. 

He pointed out that PREVENT-HD was stopped prematurely with only about one-third of the planned number of patients enrolled, “just like every other outpatient COVID-19 trial.”

He also drew attention to the low rates of vaccination in the trial population, which does not reflect the current vaccination rate in the United States, and said the different direction of the results between the main intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat analyses deserve further investigation.

However, Dr. Lopes concluded, “The results of this trial, in line with the body of evidence in this field, do not support the routine use of any antithrombotic therapy for outpatients with COVID-19.”

The PREVENT-HD trial was sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Piazza has reported receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen, and Boston Scientific, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Boston Scientific, Janssen, NAMSA, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Boston Clinical Research Institute, and Amgen.

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

CHICAGO – Early ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) reduces the risk of progression, compared with antiarrhythmic therapies, according to results of a multicenter, randomized trial called PROGRESSIVE-AF.

Over 36 months of follow-up, the trial linked early ablation with a reduced risk of persistent AFib (1.9% vs. 7.4%), and in addition, those in the ablation group were less likely to have recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias of any kind (56.5% vs. 77.2%), reported Jason G. Andrade, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge

Serving as a long-term extension of the EARLY-AF trial published almost 2 years ago, this trial expands evidence that progressive AFib can be attenuated, a concept that has been debated.

“Can early AFib ablation stop progression?” asked Carina Blomström-Lindqvist, MD, PhD. The invited discussant for the PROGRESSION-AF trial, Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist concluded, “here is another set of data that suggests it can.”

By another set of data, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist was referring to a previously published multinational study called ATTEST In this study, which involved 29 sites worldwide and compared radiofrequency ablation to antiarrhythmic drug therapy, early ablation also produced a lower risk of persistent AFib at the end of 3 years (2.4% vs. 17.5%; P = .0009).

In the previously published open-label EARLY-AF trial, 303 patients with paroxysmal, untreated AFib were randomized to cryoballoon ablation or antiarrhythmic drugs. The primary endpoint was the first documented recurrence of an atrial tachyarrhythmia between 91 and 365 days. The lower rate following ablation (42.9% vs. 67.8%) represented a more than 50% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.48; P < .001) relative to antiarrhythmic therapy.

In PROGRESSIVE-AF, the same 303 patients were monitored continuously for an additional 24 months with an implanted cardiac monitor programmed with an AFib-detection algorithm. The data from the monitor were obtained daily. Over the final 2 years of the study, office visits were conducted every 6 months.
 

Tachyarrhythmias represent primary endpoint

In addition to persistent AFib, defined as lasting ≥ 7 days or lasting 48 hours to 7 days but requiring cardioversion for termination, patients in PROGRESSIVE-AF were also monitored for recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias, AFib burden, quality of life (QOL), and health care utilization, and safety.

The average age was roughly 58 years. Although more than one-third had hypertension, most had no other comorbidities. The authors emphasized that the study population overall was relatively young and healthy.

Those randomized to antiarrhythmic therapy in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF received commonly prescribed therapies titrated to maximally tolerated doses using standardized protocols. At the start of EARLY-AF, flecainide, taken by 65% of patients, was the most commonly used agent, followed by sotalol, propafenone, dronedarone, and amiodarone.

At the end of PROGRESSIVE-AF, the order of the most common therapies did not change relative to EARLY-AF, but only 49% of patients were taking flecainide and 31% were no longer taking any antiarrhythmic therapy.

At the end of 3 years of follow-up in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF, the difference in persistent AFib represented a 75% reduction in favor of early ablation (HR, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.70).

In those treated with ablation relative to those treated with antiarrhythmic therapy, the lower rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting more than 7 days (1.9% vs. 6.0%) represented a 70% risk reduction (HR, 0.30; 95% CI 0.10-0.93). The protection from cardioversion for atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting between 2 and 7 days in duration (0.6% vs. 4.7%) translated into an 86% relative reduction (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-0.85).

The impact on QOL for those randomized to ablation, which was measured with both AFib-specific and generic measures, was meaningful to patients, according to Dr. Andrade, director of the Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory, Vancouver General Hospital.

For example, the mean difference in the AF Quality of Life Survey (AFEQT), was 8.0 at 1 year and 7.4 at 3 years in favor of ablation. A change of 5 points in this score is considered to be a clinically meaningful difference, according to Dr. Andrade.

Numerically, the relative risk of emergency room visits and cardioversion were lower in the ablation group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. However, the lower hazard ratio for hospitalization was significant (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66), supporting a reduction in consumption of health care resources.
 

Ablation found safer than drugs

The rate of adverse events of any kind (11.0% vs. 23.5%) and serious adverse events (4.5% vs. 10.1%) were lower in the ablation group.

There were no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events observed in this period of follow-up, but Dr. Andrade pointed out that follow-up was not long enough to expect differences in these events.

Impressed by the magnitude of the reduction in persistent AFib in a population of relatively young and healthy patients considered to be at a low risk of AFib progression, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist, a professor of cardiology at the Institution of Medical Science, Uppsala, Sweden, indicated that the data support early ablation as a means to reduce risk of this outcome.

However, she did caution that progressive AFib was observed in a relatively small proportion of patients managed with antiarrhythmic therapy at 3 years, an outcome relevant when discussing treatment options with patients.

The results were published in New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr. Andrade’s presentation.

Dr. Andrade reports financial relationships with Bayer, Bayliss, Biosense, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic and Servier. The trial, funded largely by the Canadian government and Canadian professional societies, received additional funding from Bayliss and Medtronic. Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist reports financial relationships with Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cathprint, Medtronic, and Sanofi.

CHICAGO – Early ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) reduces the risk of progression, compared with antiarrhythmic therapies, according to results of a multicenter, randomized trial called PROGRESSIVE-AF.

Over 36 months of follow-up, the trial linked early ablation with a reduced risk of persistent AFib (1.9% vs. 7.4%), and in addition, those in the ablation group were less likely to have recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias of any kind (56.5% vs. 77.2%), reported Jason G. Andrade, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge

Serving as a long-term extension of the EARLY-AF trial published almost 2 years ago, this trial expands evidence that progressive AFib can be attenuated, a concept that has been debated.

“Can early AFib ablation stop progression?” asked Carina Blomström-Lindqvist, MD, PhD. The invited discussant for the PROGRESSION-AF trial, Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist concluded, “here is another set of data that suggests it can.”

By another set of data, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist was referring to a previously published multinational study called ATTEST In this study, which involved 29 sites worldwide and compared radiofrequency ablation to antiarrhythmic drug therapy, early ablation also produced a lower risk of persistent AFib at the end of 3 years (2.4% vs. 17.5%; P = .0009).

In the previously published open-label EARLY-AF trial, 303 patients with paroxysmal, untreated AFib were randomized to cryoballoon ablation or antiarrhythmic drugs. The primary endpoint was the first documented recurrence of an atrial tachyarrhythmia between 91 and 365 days. The lower rate following ablation (42.9% vs. 67.8%) represented a more than 50% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.48; P < .001) relative to antiarrhythmic therapy.

In PROGRESSIVE-AF, the same 303 patients were monitored continuously for an additional 24 months with an implanted cardiac monitor programmed with an AFib-detection algorithm. The data from the monitor were obtained daily. Over the final 2 years of the study, office visits were conducted every 6 months.
 

Tachyarrhythmias represent primary endpoint

In addition to persistent AFib, defined as lasting ≥ 7 days or lasting 48 hours to 7 days but requiring cardioversion for termination, patients in PROGRESSIVE-AF were also monitored for recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias, AFib burden, quality of life (QOL), and health care utilization, and safety.

The average age was roughly 58 years. Although more than one-third had hypertension, most had no other comorbidities. The authors emphasized that the study population overall was relatively young and healthy.

Those randomized to antiarrhythmic therapy in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF received commonly prescribed therapies titrated to maximally tolerated doses using standardized protocols. At the start of EARLY-AF, flecainide, taken by 65% of patients, was the most commonly used agent, followed by sotalol, propafenone, dronedarone, and amiodarone.

At the end of PROGRESSIVE-AF, the order of the most common therapies did not change relative to EARLY-AF, but only 49% of patients were taking flecainide and 31% were no longer taking any antiarrhythmic therapy.

At the end of 3 years of follow-up in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF, the difference in persistent AFib represented a 75% reduction in favor of early ablation (HR, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.70).

In those treated with ablation relative to those treated with antiarrhythmic therapy, the lower rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting more than 7 days (1.9% vs. 6.0%) represented a 70% risk reduction (HR, 0.30; 95% CI 0.10-0.93). The protection from cardioversion for atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting between 2 and 7 days in duration (0.6% vs. 4.7%) translated into an 86% relative reduction (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-0.85).

The impact on QOL for those randomized to ablation, which was measured with both AFib-specific and generic measures, was meaningful to patients, according to Dr. Andrade, director of the Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory, Vancouver General Hospital.

For example, the mean difference in the AF Quality of Life Survey (AFEQT), was 8.0 at 1 year and 7.4 at 3 years in favor of ablation. A change of 5 points in this score is considered to be a clinically meaningful difference, according to Dr. Andrade.

Numerically, the relative risk of emergency room visits and cardioversion were lower in the ablation group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. However, the lower hazard ratio for hospitalization was significant (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66), supporting a reduction in consumption of health care resources.
 

Ablation found safer than drugs

The rate of adverse events of any kind (11.0% vs. 23.5%) and serious adverse events (4.5% vs. 10.1%) were lower in the ablation group.

There were no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events observed in this period of follow-up, but Dr. Andrade pointed out that follow-up was not long enough to expect differences in these events.

Impressed by the magnitude of the reduction in persistent AFib in a population of relatively young and healthy patients considered to be at a low risk of AFib progression, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist, a professor of cardiology at the Institution of Medical Science, Uppsala, Sweden, indicated that the data support early ablation as a means to reduce risk of this outcome.

However, she did caution that progressive AFib was observed in a relatively small proportion of patients managed with antiarrhythmic therapy at 3 years, an outcome relevant when discussing treatment options with patients.

The results were published in New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr. Andrade’s presentation.

Dr. Andrade reports financial relationships with Bayer, Bayliss, Biosense, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic and Servier. The trial, funded largely by the Canadian government and Canadian professional societies, received additional funding from Bayliss and Medtronic. Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist reports financial relationships with Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cathprint, Medtronic, and Sanofi.

CHICAGO – Early ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) reduces the risk of progression, compared with antiarrhythmic therapies, according to results of a multicenter, randomized trial called PROGRESSIVE-AF.

Over 36 months of follow-up, the trial linked early ablation with a reduced risk of persistent AFib (1.9% vs. 7.4%), and in addition, those in the ablation group were less likely to have recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias of any kind (56.5% vs. 77.2%), reported Jason G. Andrade, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge

Serving as a long-term extension of the EARLY-AF trial published almost 2 years ago, this trial expands evidence that progressive AFib can be attenuated, a concept that has been debated.

“Can early AFib ablation stop progression?” asked Carina Blomström-Lindqvist, MD, PhD. The invited discussant for the PROGRESSION-AF trial, Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist concluded, “here is another set of data that suggests it can.”

By another set of data, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist was referring to a previously published multinational study called ATTEST In this study, which involved 29 sites worldwide and compared radiofrequency ablation to antiarrhythmic drug therapy, early ablation also produced a lower risk of persistent AFib at the end of 3 years (2.4% vs. 17.5%; P = .0009).

In the previously published open-label EARLY-AF trial, 303 patients with paroxysmal, untreated AFib were randomized to cryoballoon ablation or antiarrhythmic drugs. The primary endpoint was the first documented recurrence of an atrial tachyarrhythmia between 91 and 365 days. The lower rate following ablation (42.9% vs. 67.8%) represented a more than 50% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.48; P < .001) relative to antiarrhythmic therapy.

In PROGRESSIVE-AF, the same 303 patients were monitored continuously for an additional 24 months with an implanted cardiac monitor programmed with an AFib-detection algorithm. The data from the monitor were obtained daily. Over the final 2 years of the study, office visits were conducted every 6 months.
 

Tachyarrhythmias represent primary endpoint

In addition to persistent AFib, defined as lasting ≥ 7 days or lasting 48 hours to 7 days but requiring cardioversion for termination, patients in PROGRESSIVE-AF were also monitored for recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias, AFib burden, quality of life (QOL), and health care utilization, and safety.

The average age was roughly 58 years. Although more than one-third had hypertension, most had no other comorbidities. The authors emphasized that the study population overall was relatively young and healthy.

Those randomized to antiarrhythmic therapy in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF received commonly prescribed therapies titrated to maximally tolerated doses using standardized protocols. At the start of EARLY-AF, flecainide, taken by 65% of patients, was the most commonly used agent, followed by sotalol, propafenone, dronedarone, and amiodarone.

At the end of PROGRESSIVE-AF, the order of the most common therapies did not change relative to EARLY-AF, but only 49% of patients were taking flecainide and 31% were no longer taking any antiarrhythmic therapy.

At the end of 3 years of follow-up in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF, the difference in persistent AFib represented a 75% reduction in favor of early ablation (HR, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.70).

In those treated with ablation relative to those treated with antiarrhythmic therapy, the lower rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting more than 7 days (1.9% vs. 6.0%) represented a 70% risk reduction (HR, 0.30; 95% CI 0.10-0.93). The protection from cardioversion for atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting between 2 and 7 days in duration (0.6% vs. 4.7%) translated into an 86% relative reduction (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-0.85).

The impact on QOL for those randomized to ablation, which was measured with both AFib-specific and generic measures, was meaningful to patients, according to Dr. Andrade, director of the Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory, Vancouver General Hospital.

For example, the mean difference in the AF Quality of Life Survey (AFEQT), was 8.0 at 1 year and 7.4 at 3 years in favor of ablation. A change of 5 points in this score is considered to be a clinically meaningful difference, according to Dr. Andrade.

Numerically, the relative risk of emergency room visits and cardioversion were lower in the ablation group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. However, the lower hazard ratio for hospitalization was significant (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66), supporting a reduction in consumption of health care resources.
 

Ablation found safer than drugs

The rate of adverse events of any kind (11.0% vs. 23.5%) and serious adverse events (4.5% vs. 10.1%) were lower in the ablation group.

There were no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events observed in this period of follow-up, but Dr. Andrade pointed out that follow-up was not long enough to expect differences in these events.

Impressed by the magnitude of the reduction in persistent AFib in a population of relatively young and healthy patients considered to be at a low risk of AFib progression, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist, a professor of cardiology at the Institution of Medical Science, Uppsala, Sweden, indicated that the data support early ablation as a means to reduce risk of this outcome.

However, she did caution that progressive AFib was observed in a relatively small proportion of patients managed with antiarrhythmic therapy at 3 years, an outcome relevant when discussing treatment options with patients.

The results were published in New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr. Andrade’s presentation.

Dr. Andrade reports financial relationships with Bayer, Bayliss, Biosense, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic and Servier. The trial, funded largely by the Canadian government and Canadian professional societies, received additional funding from Bayliss and Medtronic. Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist reports financial relationships with Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cathprint, Medtronic, and Sanofi.

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is an immune-mediated acquired condition affecting both adults and children.¹ Acute ITP is the most common form, which happens in the presence of a precipitant, leading to a drop in platelet counts. However, chronic ITP can occur when all the causes that might precipitate thrombocytopenia have been ruled out, and it is persistent for ≥ 12 months.² Its presence can mask other diseases that exhibit somewhat similar signs and symptoms. We present a case of a patient presenting with chronic ITP with diffuse rash and was later diagnosed with idiopathic leukocytoclastic vasculitis (LCV).

Case Presentation

A 79-year-old presented to the hospital with 2-day history of a rash. The rash was purpureal and petechial and located on the trunk and bilateral upper and lower extremities. The rash was associated with itchiness and pain in the wrists, ankles, and small joints of the hands. The patient reported no changes in medication or diet, no recent upper respiratory tract or gastrointestinal infections, fever or chills, night sweats, or weight loss. The patient’s medical history consisted of thrombocytopenia about 5 years before and since then had been following up with a hematologist and underwent an extensive workup, including bone marrow biopsy without a definite diagnosis.

The patient mentioned that at the time of diagnosis the platelet count was about 90,000 but had been fluctuating between 50 and 60,000 recently. The patient also reported no history of gum bleeding, nosebleeds, hemoptysis, hematemesis, or any miscarriages. She also had difficulty voiding for 2 to 3 days but no dysuria, frequency, urgency, or incontinence.

The patient was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI) 1 day before presentation and was started on ciprofloxacin 500 mg daily for 5 days. Her home medications included diphenhydramine as needed, metoprolol, and levothyroxine 125 µg. Her medical history was significant for hypertension, bradycardia with pacemaker placement, and obstructive sleep apnea. There were no noteworthy elements in her family and social history.

Laboratory results were significant for 57,000/µL platelet count (normal range, 150,000-450,000), elevated d-dimer (6.07), < 6 mg/dL C4 (normal range, 88-201). Hemoglobin level, coagulation panel, hemolytic panel, and fibrinogen level results were unremarkable. The hepatitis panel, Lyme disease, and HIV test were negative. The peripheral blood smear showed moderate thrombocytopenia, mild monocytosis, and borderline normochromic normocytic anemia without schistocytes. The autoimmune panel to evaluate thrombocytopenia showed platelet antibody against glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa, GP Ib/Ix, GP Ia/IIa, suggestive toward a diagnosis of chronic idiopathic ITP. However, the skin biopsy of the rash was indicative of LCV.

An autoimmune panel for vasculitis, including antinuclear antibody and antidouble-stranded DNA, was negative. While in the hospital, the patient completed the course of ciprofloxacin for the UTI, the rash started to fade without any intervention, and the platelet count improved to 69,000/µL. The patient was discharged after 3 days with the recommendation to follow up with her hematologist.

Discussion

LCV is a small vessel vasculitis of the dermal capillaries and venules. Histologically, LCV is characterized by fibrinoid necrosis of the vessel wall with frequent neutrophils, nuclear dust, and extravasated erythrocytes.³

Although a thorough evaluation is recommended to determine etiology, about 50% of cases are idiopathic. The most common precipitants are acute infection or a new medication. Postinfectious LCV is most commonly seen after streptococcal upper respiratory tract infection. Among other infectious triggers, Mycobacterium, Staphylococcus aureus, chlamydia, Neisseria, HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and syphilis are noteworthy. Foods, autoimmune disease, collagen vascular disease, and malignancy are also associated with LCV.⁴

In our patient we could not find any specific identifiable triggers. However, the presence of a UTI as a precipitating factor cannot be ruled out.⁵ Moreover, the patient received ciprofloxacin and there have been several case reports of LCV associated with use of a fluroquinolone.⁶ Nevertheless, in the presence of chronic ITP, which also is an auto-immune condition, an idiopathic cause seemed a reasonable explanation for the patient’s etiopathogenesis.

The cutaneous manifestations of LCV may appear about 1 to 3 weeks after the triggering event if present. The major clinical findings include palpable purpura and/or petechiae that are nonblanching. These findings can easily be confused with other diagnoses especially in the presence of a similar preexisting diagnosis. For example, our patient already had chronic ITP, and in such circumstances, a diagnosis of superimposed LCV can be easily missed without a thorough investigation. Extracutaneous manifestations with LCV are less common. Systemic symptoms may include low-grade fevers, malaise, weight loss, myalgia, and arthralgia. These findings have been noted in about 30% of affected patients, with arthralgia the most common manifestation.⁷ Our patient also presented with pain involving multiple joints.

The mainstay of diagnosis for LCV is a skin biopsy with direct immunofluorescence. However, a workup for an underlying condition should be considered based on clinical suspicion. If a secondary cause is found, management should target treating the underlying cause, including withdrawal of the offending drug, treatment or control of the underlying infection, malignancy, or connective tissue disease. Most cases of idiopathic cutaneous LCV resolve with supportive measures, including leg elevation, rest, compression stockings, and antihistamines. In resistant cases, a 4- to 6-week tapering dose of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive steroid-sparing agents may be needed.⁸

Conclusions

Although most cases of LCV are mild and resolve without intervention, many cases go undiagnosed due to a delay in performing a biopsy. However, we should always look for the root cause of a patient’s condition to rule out underlying contributing conditions. Differentiating LCV from any other preexisting condition presenting similarly is important.

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is an immune-mediated acquired condition affecting both adults and children.¹ Acute ITP is the most common form, which happens in the presence of a precipitant, leading to a drop in platelet counts. However, chronic ITP can occur when all the causes that might precipitate thrombocytopenia have been ruled out, and it is persistent for ≥ 12 months.² Its presence can mask other diseases that exhibit somewhat similar signs and symptoms. We present a case of a patient presenting with chronic ITP with diffuse rash and was later diagnosed with idiopathic leukocytoclastic vasculitis (LCV).

Case Presentation

A 79-year-old presented to the hospital with 2-day history of a rash. The rash was purpureal and petechial and located on the trunk and bilateral upper and lower extremities. The rash was associated with itchiness and pain in the wrists, ankles, and small joints of the hands. The patient reported no changes in medication or diet, no recent upper respiratory tract or gastrointestinal infections, fever or chills, night sweats, or weight loss. The patient’s medical history consisted of thrombocytopenia about 5 years before and since then had been following up with a hematologist and underwent an extensive workup, including bone marrow biopsy without a definite diagnosis.

The patient mentioned that at the time of diagnosis the platelet count was about 90,000 but had been fluctuating between 50 and 60,000 recently. The patient also reported no history of gum bleeding, nosebleeds, hemoptysis, hematemesis, or any miscarriages. She also had difficulty voiding for 2 to 3 days but no dysuria, frequency, urgency, or incontinence.

The patient was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI) 1 day before presentation and was started on ciprofloxacin 500 mg daily for 5 days. Her home medications included diphenhydramine as needed, metoprolol, and levothyroxine 125 µg. Her medical history was significant for hypertension, bradycardia with pacemaker placement, and obstructive sleep apnea. There were no noteworthy elements in her family and social history.

Laboratory results were significant for 57,000/µL platelet count (normal range, 150,000-450,000), elevated d-dimer (6.07), < 6 mg/dL C4 (normal range, 88-201). Hemoglobin level, coagulation panel, hemolytic panel, and fibrinogen level results were unremarkable. The hepatitis panel, Lyme disease, and HIV test were negative. The peripheral blood smear showed moderate thrombocytopenia, mild monocytosis, and borderline normochromic normocytic anemia without schistocytes. The autoimmune panel to evaluate thrombocytopenia showed platelet antibody against glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa, GP Ib/Ix, GP Ia/IIa, suggestive toward a diagnosis of chronic idiopathic ITP. However, the skin biopsy of the rash was indicative of LCV.

An autoimmune panel for vasculitis, including antinuclear antibody and antidouble-stranded DNA, was negative. While in the hospital, the patient completed the course of ciprofloxacin for the UTI, the rash started to fade without any intervention, and the platelet count improved to 69,000/µL. The patient was discharged after 3 days with the recommendation to follow up with her hematologist.

Discussion

LCV is a small vessel vasculitis of the dermal capillaries and venules. Histologically, LCV is characterized by fibrinoid necrosis of the vessel wall with frequent neutrophils, nuclear dust, and extravasated erythrocytes.³

Although a thorough evaluation is recommended to determine etiology, about 50% of cases are idiopathic. The most common precipitants are acute infection or a new medication. Postinfectious LCV is most commonly seen after streptococcal upper respiratory tract infection. Among other infectious triggers, Mycobacterium, Staphylococcus aureus, chlamydia, Neisseria, HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and syphilis are noteworthy. Foods, autoimmune disease, collagen vascular disease, and malignancy are also associated with LCV.⁴

In our patient we could not find any specific identifiable triggers. However, the presence of a UTI as a precipitating factor cannot be ruled out.⁵ Moreover, the patient received ciprofloxacin and there have been several case reports of LCV associated with use of a fluroquinolone.⁶ Nevertheless, in the presence of chronic ITP, which also is an auto-immune condition, an idiopathic cause seemed a reasonable explanation for the patient’s etiopathogenesis.

The cutaneous manifestations of LCV may appear about 1 to 3 weeks after the triggering event if present. The major clinical findings include palpable purpura and/or petechiae that are nonblanching. These findings can easily be confused with other diagnoses especially in the presence of a similar preexisting diagnosis. For example, our patient already had chronic ITP, and in such circumstances, a diagnosis of superimposed LCV can be easily missed without a thorough investigation. Extracutaneous manifestations with LCV are less common. Systemic symptoms may include low-grade fevers, malaise, weight loss, myalgia, and arthralgia. These findings have been noted in about 30% of affected patients, with arthralgia the most common manifestation.⁷ Our patient also presented with pain involving multiple joints.

The mainstay of diagnosis for LCV is a skin biopsy with direct immunofluorescence. However, a workup for an underlying condition should be considered based on clinical suspicion. If a secondary cause is found, management should target treating the underlying cause, including withdrawal of the offending drug, treatment or control of the underlying infection, malignancy, or connective tissue disease. Most cases of idiopathic cutaneous LCV resolve with supportive measures, including leg elevation, rest, compression stockings, and antihistamines. In resistant cases, a 4- to 6-week tapering dose of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive steroid-sparing agents may be needed.⁸

Conclusions

Although most cases of LCV are mild and resolve without intervention, many cases go undiagnosed due to a delay in performing a biopsy. However, we should always look for the root cause of a patient’s condition to rule out underlying contributing conditions. Differentiating LCV from any other preexisting condition presenting similarly is important.

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is an immune-mediated acquired condition affecting both adults and children.¹ Acute ITP is the most common form, which happens in the presence of a precipitant, leading to a drop in platelet counts. However, chronic ITP can occur when all the causes that might precipitate thrombocytopenia have been ruled out, and it is persistent for ≥ 12 months.² Its presence can mask other diseases that exhibit somewhat similar signs and symptoms. We present a case of a patient presenting with chronic ITP with diffuse rash and was later diagnosed with idiopathic leukocytoclastic vasculitis (LCV).

Case Presentation

A 79-year-old presented to the hospital with 2-day history of a rash. The rash was purpureal and petechial and located on the trunk and bilateral upper and lower extremities. The rash was associated with itchiness and pain in the wrists, ankles, and small joints of the hands. The patient reported no changes in medication or diet, no recent upper respiratory tract or gastrointestinal infections, fever or chills, night sweats, or weight loss. The patient’s medical history consisted of thrombocytopenia about 5 years before and since then had been following up with a hematologist and underwent an extensive workup, including bone marrow biopsy without a definite diagnosis.

The patient mentioned that at the time of diagnosis the platelet count was about 90,000 but had been fluctuating between 50 and 60,000 recently. The patient also reported no history of gum bleeding, nosebleeds, hemoptysis, hematemesis, or any miscarriages. She also had difficulty voiding for 2 to 3 days but no dysuria, frequency, urgency, or incontinence.

The patient was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI) 1 day before presentation and was started on ciprofloxacin 500 mg daily for 5 days. Her home medications included diphenhydramine as needed, metoprolol, and levothyroxine 125 µg. Her medical history was significant for hypertension, bradycardia with pacemaker placement, and obstructive sleep apnea. There were no noteworthy elements in her family and social history.

Laboratory results were significant for 57,000/µL platelet count (normal range, 150,000-450,000), elevated d-dimer (6.07), < 6 mg/dL C4 (normal range, 88-201). Hemoglobin level, coagulation panel, hemolytic panel, and fibrinogen level results were unremarkable. The hepatitis panel, Lyme disease, and HIV test were negative. The peripheral blood smear showed moderate thrombocytopenia, mild monocytosis, and borderline normochromic normocytic anemia without schistocytes. The autoimmune panel to evaluate thrombocytopenia showed platelet antibody against glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa, GP Ib/Ix, GP Ia/IIa, suggestive toward a diagnosis of chronic idiopathic ITP. However, the skin biopsy of the rash was indicative of LCV.

An autoimmune panel for vasculitis, including antinuclear antibody and antidouble-stranded DNA, was negative. While in the hospital, the patient completed the course of ciprofloxacin for the UTI, the rash started to fade without any intervention, and the platelet count improved to 69,000/µL. The patient was discharged after 3 days with the recommendation to follow up with her hematologist.

Discussion

LCV is a small vessel vasculitis of the dermal capillaries and venules. Histologically, LCV is characterized by fibrinoid necrosis of the vessel wall with frequent neutrophils, nuclear dust, and extravasated erythrocytes.³

Although a thorough evaluation is recommended to determine etiology, about 50% of cases are idiopathic. The most common precipitants are acute infection or a new medication. Postinfectious LCV is most commonly seen after streptococcal upper respiratory tract infection. Among other infectious triggers, Mycobacterium, Staphylococcus aureus, chlamydia, Neisseria, HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and syphilis are noteworthy. Foods, autoimmune disease, collagen vascular disease, and malignancy are also associated with LCV.⁴

In our patient we could not find any specific identifiable triggers. However, the presence of a UTI as a precipitating factor cannot be ruled out.⁵ Moreover, the patient received ciprofloxacin and there have been several case reports of LCV associated with use of a fluroquinolone.⁶ Nevertheless, in the presence of chronic ITP, which also is an auto-immune condition, an idiopathic cause seemed a reasonable explanation for the patient’s etiopathogenesis.

The cutaneous manifestations of LCV may appear about 1 to 3 weeks after the triggering event if present. The major clinical findings include palpable purpura and/or petechiae that are nonblanching. These findings can easily be confused with other diagnoses especially in the presence of a similar preexisting diagnosis. For example, our patient already had chronic ITP, and in such circumstances, a diagnosis of superimposed LCV can be easily missed without a thorough investigation. Extracutaneous manifestations with LCV are less common. Systemic symptoms may include low-grade fevers, malaise, weight loss, myalgia, and arthralgia. These findings have been noted in about 30% of affected patients, with arthralgia the most common manifestation.⁷ Our patient also presented with pain involving multiple joints.

The mainstay of diagnosis for LCV is a skin biopsy with direct immunofluorescence. However, a workup for an underlying condition should be considered based on clinical suspicion. If a secondary cause is found, management should target treating the underlying cause, including withdrawal of the offending drug, treatment or control of the underlying infection, malignancy, or connective tissue disease. Most cases of idiopathic cutaneous LCV resolve with supportive measures, including leg elevation, rest, compression stockings, and antihistamines. In resistant cases, a 4- to 6-week tapering dose of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive steroid-sparing agents may be needed.⁸

Conclusions

Although most cases of LCV are mild and resolve without intervention, many cases go undiagnosed due to a delay in performing a biopsy. However, we should always look for the root cause of a patient’s condition to rule out underlying contributing conditions. Differentiating LCV from any other preexisting condition presenting similarly is important.

Use of a combination antihypertensive product containing quarter doses of four different drugs could be an effective strategy to get patients to target blood pressures in one step, a new study suggests. 

The study, QUARTET-USA, showed a reduction in BP of almost 5 mm Hg more than the comparator of one antihypertensive agent at standard dose over the 12-week follow-up period in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

The QUARTET-USA study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Mark Huffman, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. 

It builds on a previous trial, QUARTET, conducted in Australia, which first showed benefits with this approach.

In the new U.S. study, which was considerably smaller than the Australian trial, the four-drug combination, including candesartan, amlodipine, indapamide, and bisoprolol, led to a –4.8/–4.9 mm Hg greater reduction in BP from baseline to 12 weeks, compared with standard-dose candesartan monotherapy.

Differences in systolic BP were not statistically significant, which is likely because of limited power related to the sample size, Dr. Huffman noted.

Adverse events were more common in the four-drug intervention group, but the rate of discontinuation was higher in the comparator group. No severe adverse events were deemed related to the study drug.

“The direction and magnitude of [the] blood pressure–lowering effect were similar between the previous Australian study and this American study, despite different populations with lower baseline blood pressure in the current study, thus strengthening the case for this new approach,” Dr. Huffman concluded.

“The two studies together show that the approach of using four drugs in quarter doses is more effective in lowering blood pressure than a single standard dose antihypertensive agent and has an acceptable safely profile,” he said in an interview.

He said the four-drug combination could be an effective way of getting patients to target without multiple appointments.

“If you think about how many visits to the doctor’s office it takes to get patients to goal blood pressures, this combination gets patients down to new guideline target levels in one step, whereas in the SPRINT trial it took three or more visits to get down to these levels. And in practice we lose people – they don’t come back,” he said.

Dr. Huffman explained that the rationale for the study was the persistently low hypertension control rate, which demonstrates the need for a new approach.

The previous Australian QUARTET study suggested that ultra–low-dose combination therapy has a favorable balance between blood pressure–lowering effect, tolerability, and adherence.

That study, conducted in 591 patients and reported in 2021, demonstrated a greater BP-lowering effect with a four-drug combination at quarter doses (irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) at 12 weeks, compared with irbesartan 150 mg daily. Systolic BP was reduced by more than 6.9 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 5.8 mm Hg than full-dose irbesartan alone, both significant differences.

The current study, QUARTET-USA, aimed to see if a similar strategy could produce comparable results in a U.S. population.

The U.S. study included 62 patients from the Access Community Health Network, Chicago, who were either treatment naive with BPs above 140/90 mm Hg, or already taking antihypertensive monotherapy with BPs above 130/85 mm Hg.

The mean systolic BP at baseline was 138 mm Hg and the mean diastolic pressure was 84 mm Hg.

Study participants were mainly from ethnic minorities (90% Hispanic or Black) and over half were from low-income households (annual household income less than $25,000).

They were randomly assigned to daily administration of a four-drug combination at quarter doses (candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) or a full dose of candesartan 8 mg (the comparator arm).

Amlodipine 5 mg daily could be added on to treatment if BP remained above 130/80 mm Hg at 6 weeks. This occurred in 18% of the study group versus 53% of the comparator group.

Results showed that at 12 weeks the adjusted mean change in systolic BP weeks was –4.8 mm Hg (95% CI,–10.7 to 1.2), and the adjusted mean change in diastolic BP was –4.9 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.6 to –1.1) in the four-drug combination group, compared with the comparator arm.

Average BPs at the end of 12-week study period were 121 mm Hg systolic and 73 mm Hg diastolic in the four-drug intervention group, compared with 124 mm Hg systolic and 77 mm Hg diastolic in the comparator group.

Any adverse events that were possibly related to drug therapy occurred in 25% of the intervention group versus 10% of the comparator group. But adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 6.3% of the study group versus 26.7% of patients in the comparator arm.

“New approaches are needed to achieve lower blood pressure targets, especially for patients and communities with a high burden of hypertension and hypertension-related diseases. QUARTET-USA was the first trial of a four-drug, ultra–low-dose, blood pressure–lowering combination therapy in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said.

“We showed reductions in blood pressure similar in magnitude to those in the Australian study. It is useful to know that the direction of the effect is similar across varied populations. Now that we have that signal of efficacy and tolerability, we can move to actually getting it into the hands of patients and providers,” he added.

Noting that further studies will be required to attain marketing authorization, Dr. Huffman suggested that a pharmaceutical company would need to complete that process.

“These are promising results for companies who may be interested in partnering,” he said.

‘A more efficient approach’ 

LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and discussant of the study, said the QUARTET-USA study suggests the four-drug, low-dose combination shows promise in lowering BP, compared with the standard dose, and while the reduction in systolic BP was not quite significant, it was clinically meaningful.

“Most U.S. adults with hypertension do not have it under control. This is due to unfavorable social and structural determinants of health which limit adherence to antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Brewer noted.  

From a patient point of view, the multiple visits needed to attain goals are a burden and there is also the issue of clinical inertia and lack of medication intensification by clinicians, she commented. 

“Of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, 40% are taking just one antihypertensive medication, so up-front, low-dose combination therapy is likely a more efficient approach,” she said.

“This study builds the evidence base for the need for tailored interventions that address the social determinants of health and the intentional prioritization of diverse population in clinical trials,” Dr. Brewer concluded.

QUARTET was an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Huffman reported a pending patent for a heart failure polypill. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, where Huffman has a secondary appointment, has a patent, license, and has received investment funding with intent to commercialize fixed-dose combination therapy. Dr. Brewer reported research support from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Heart Association, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb Foundation.

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

Use of a combination antihypertensive product containing quarter doses of four different drugs could be an effective strategy to get patients to target blood pressures in one step, a new study suggests. 

The study, QUARTET-USA, showed a reduction in BP of almost 5 mm Hg more than the comparator of one antihypertensive agent at standard dose over the 12-week follow-up period in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

The QUARTET-USA study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Mark Huffman, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. 

It builds on a previous trial, QUARTET, conducted in Australia, which first showed benefits with this approach.

In the new U.S. study, which was considerably smaller than the Australian trial, the four-drug combination, including candesartan, amlodipine, indapamide, and bisoprolol, led to a –4.8/–4.9 mm Hg greater reduction in BP from baseline to 12 weeks, compared with standard-dose candesartan monotherapy.

Differences in systolic BP were not statistically significant, which is likely because of limited power related to the sample size, Dr. Huffman noted.

Adverse events were more common in the four-drug intervention group, but the rate of discontinuation was higher in the comparator group. No severe adverse events were deemed related to the study drug.

“The direction and magnitude of [the] blood pressure–lowering effect were similar between the previous Australian study and this American study, despite different populations with lower baseline blood pressure in the current study, thus strengthening the case for this new approach,” Dr. Huffman concluded.

“The two studies together show that the approach of using four drugs in quarter doses is more effective in lowering blood pressure than a single standard dose antihypertensive agent and has an acceptable safely profile,” he said in an interview.

He said the four-drug combination could be an effective way of getting patients to target without multiple appointments.

“If you think about how many visits to the doctor’s office it takes to get patients to goal blood pressures, this combination gets patients down to new guideline target levels in one step, whereas in the SPRINT trial it took three or more visits to get down to these levels. And in practice we lose people – they don’t come back,” he said.

Dr. Huffman explained that the rationale for the study was the persistently low hypertension control rate, which demonstrates the need for a new approach.

The previous Australian QUARTET study suggested that ultra–low-dose combination therapy has a favorable balance between blood pressure–lowering effect, tolerability, and adherence.

That study, conducted in 591 patients and reported in 2021, demonstrated a greater BP-lowering effect with a four-drug combination at quarter doses (irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) at 12 weeks, compared with irbesartan 150 mg daily. Systolic BP was reduced by more than 6.9 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 5.8 mm Hg than full-dose irbesartan alone, both significant differences.

The current study, QUARTET-USA, aimed to see if a similar strategy could produce comparable results in a U.S. population.

The U.S. study included 62 patients from the Access Community Health Network, Chicago, who were either treatment naive with BPs above 140/90 mm Hg, or already taking antihypertensive monotherapy with BPs above 130/85 mm Hg.

The mean systolic BP at baseline was 138 mm Hg and the mean diastolic pressure was 84 mm Hg.

Study participants were mainly from ethnic minorities (90% Hispanic or Black) and over half were from low-income households (annual household income less than $25,000).

They were randomly assigned to daily administration of a four-drug combination at quarter doses (candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) or a full dose of candesartan 8 mg (the comparator arm).

Amlodipine 5 mg daily could be added on to treatment if BP remained above 130/80 mm Hg at 6 weeks. This occurred in 18% of the study group versus 53% of the comparator group.

Results showed that at 12 weeks the adjusted mean change in systolic BP weeks was –4.8 mm Hg (95% CI,–10.7 to 1.2), and the adjusted mean change in diastolic BP was –4.9 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.6 to –1.1) in the four-drug combination group, compared with the comparator arm.

Average BPs at the end of 12-week study period were 121 mm Hg systolic and 73 mm Hg diastolic in the four-drug intervention group, compared with 124 mm Hg systolic and 77 mm Hg diastolic in the comparator group.

Any adverse events that were possibly related to drug therapy occurred in 25% of the intervention group versus 10% of the comparator group. But adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 6.3% of the study group versus 26.7% of patients in the comparator arm.

“New approaches are needed to achieve lower blood pressure targets, especially for patients and communities with a high burden of hypertension and hypertension-related diseases. QUARTET-USA was the first trial of a four-drug, ultra–low-dose, blood pressure–lowering combination therapy in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said.

“We showed reductions in blood pressure similar in magnitude to those in the Australian study. It is useful to know that the direction of the effect is similar across varied populations. Now that we have that signal of efficacy and tolerability, we can move to actually getting it into the hands of patients and providers,” he added.

Noting that further studies will be required to attain marketing authorization, Dr. Huffman suggested that a pharmaceutical company would need to complete that process.

“These are promising results for companies who may be interested in partnering,” he said.

‘A more efficient approach’ 

LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and discussant of the study, said the QUARTET-USA study suggests the four-drug, low-dose combination shows promise in lowering BP, compared with the standard dose, and while the reduction in systolic BP was not quite significant, it was clinically meaningful.

“Most U.S. adults with hypertension do not have it under control. This is due to unfavorable social and structural determinants of health which limit adherence to antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Brewer noted.  

From a patient point of view, the multiple visits needed to attain goals are a burden and there is also the issue of clinical inertia and lack of medication intensification by clinicians, she commented. 

“Of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, 40% are taking just one antihypertensive medication, so up-front, low-dose combination therapy is likely a more efficient approach,” she said.

“This study builds the evidence base for the need for tailored interventions that address the social determinants of health and the intentional prioritization of diverse population in clinical trials,” Dr. Brewer concluded.

QUARTET was an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Huffman reported a pending patent for a heart failure polypill. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, where Huffman has a secondary appointment, has a patent, license, and has received investment funding with intent to commercialize fixed-dose combination therapy. Dr. Brewer reported research support from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Heart Association, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb Foundation.

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

Use of a combination antihypertensive product containing quarter doses of four different drugs could be an effective strategy to get patients to target blood pressures in one step, a new study suggests. 

The study, QUARTET-USA, showed a reduction in BP of almost 5 mm Hg more than the comparator of one antihypertensive agent at standard dose over the 12-week follow-up period in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

The QUARTET-USA study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Mark Huffman, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. 

It builds on a previous trial, QUARTET, conducted in Australia, which first showed benefits with this approach.

In the new U.S. study, which was considerably smaller than the Australian trial, the four-drug combination, including candesartan, amlodipine, indapamide, and bisoprolol, led to a –4.8/–4.9 mm Hg greater reduction in BP from baseline to 12 weeks, compared with standard-dose candesartan monotherapy.

Differences in systolic BP were not statistically significant, which is likely because of limited power related to the sample size, Dr. Huffman noted.

Adverse events were more common in the four-drug intervention group, but the rate of discontinuation was higher in the comparator group. No severe adverse events were deemed related to the study drug.

“The direction and magnitude of [the] blood pressure–lowering effect were similar between the previous Australian study and this American study, despite different populations with lower baseline blood pressure in the current study, thus strengthening the case for this new approach,” Dr. Huffman concluded.

“The two studies together show that the approach of using four drugs in quarter doses is more effective in lowering blood pressure than a single standard dose antihypertensive agent and has an acceptable safely profile,” he said in an interview.

He said the four-drug combination could be an effective way of getting patients to target without multiple appointments.

“If you think about how many visits to the doctor’s office it takes to get patients to goal blood pressures, this combination gets patients down to new guideline target levels in one step, whereas in the SPRINT trial it took three or more visits to get down to these levels. And in practice we lose people – they don’t come back,” he said.

Dr. Huffman explained that the rationale for the study was the persistently low hypertension control rate, which demonstrates the need for a new approach.

The previous Australian QUARTET study suggested that ultra–low-dose combination therapy has a favorable balance between blood pressure–lowering effect, tolerability, and adherence.

That study, conducted in 591 patients and reported in 2021, demonstrated a greater BP-lowering effect with a four-drug combination at quarter doses (irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) at 12 weeks, compared with irbesartan 150 mg daily. Systolic BP was reduced by more than 6.9 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 5.8 mm Hg than full-dose irbesartan alone, both significant differences.

The current study, QUARTET-USA, aimed to see if a similar strategy could produce comparable results in a U.S. population.

The U.S. study included 62 patients from the Access Community Health Network, Chicago, who were either treatment naive with BPs above 140/90 mm Hg, or already taking antihypertensive monotherapy with BPs above 130/85 mm Hg.

The mean systolic BP at baseline was 138 mm Hg and the mean diastolic pressure was 84 mm Hg.

Study participants were mainly from ethnic minorities (90% Hispanic or Black) and over half were from low-income households (annual household income less than $25,000).

They were randomly assigned to daily administration of a four-drug combination at quarter doses (candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) or a full dose of candesartan 8 mg (the comparator arm).

Amlodipine 5 mg daily could be added on to treatment if BP remained above 130/80 mm Hg at 6 weeks. This occurred in 18% of the study group versus 53% of the comparator group.

Results showed that at 12 weeks the adjusted mean change in systolic BP weeks was –4.8 mm Hg (95% CI,–10.7 to 1.2), and the adjusted mean change in diastolic BP was –4.9 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.6 to –1.1) in the four-drug combination group, compared with the comparator arm.

Average BPs at the end of 12-week study period were 121 mm Hg systolic and 73 mm Hg diastolic in the four-drug intervention group, compared with 124 mm Hg systolic and 77 mm Hg diastolic in the comparator group.

Any adverse events that were possibly related to drug therapy occurred in 25% of the intervention group versus 10% of the comparator group. But adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 6.3% of the study group versus 26.7% of patients in the comparator arm.

“New approaches are needed to achieve lower blood pressure targets, especially for patients and communities with a high burden of hypertension and hypertension-related diseases. QUARTET-USA was the first trial of a four-drug, ultra–low-dose, blood pressure–lowering combination therapy in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said.

“We showed reductions in blood pressure similar in magnitude to those in the Australian study. It is useful to know that the direction of the effect is similar across varied populations. Now that we have that signal of efficacy and tolerability, we can move to actually getting it into the hands of patients and providers,” he added.

Noting that further studies will be required to attain marketing authorization, Dr. Huffman suggested that a pharmaceutical company would need to complete that process.

“These are promising results for companies who may be interested in partnering,” he said.

‘A more efficient approach’ 

LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and discussant of the study, said the QUARTET-USA study suggests the four-drug, low-dose combination shows promise in lowering BP, compared with the standard dose, and while the reduction in systolic BP was not quite significant, it was clinically meaningful.

“Most U.S. adults with hypertension do not have it under control. This is due to unfavorable social and structural determinants of health which limit adherence to antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Brewer noted.  

From a patient point of view, the multiple visits needed to attain goals are a burden and there is also the issue of clinical inertia and lack of medication intensification by clinicians, she commented. 

“Of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, 40% are taking just one antihypertensive medication, so up-front, low-dose combination therapy is likely a more efficient approach,” she said.

“This study builds the evidence base for the need for tailored interventions that address the social determinants of health and the intentional prioritization of diverse population in clinical trials,” Dr. Brewer concluded.

QUARTET was an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Huffman reported a pending patent for a heart failure polypill. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, where Huffman has a secondary appointment, has a patent, license, and has received investment funding with intent to commercialize fixed-dose combination therapy. Dr. Brewer reported research support from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Heart Association, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb Foundation.

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

CHICAGO – In patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and a usable saphenous vein segment, a surgical procedure leads to better outcomes than an endovascular approach, according results of the multinational randomized BEST-CLI trial.

In that study, conducted with two cohorts, the advantage of surgery was limited to the group with an available saphenous vein, but in this group the advantage over an endovascular approach was substantial, according to Alik Farber, MD, chief of vascular and endovascular surgery at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Bypass with adequate saphenous vein should be offered as a first-line treatment option for suitable candidates with CLTI as part of fully informed, shared decision-making,” Dr. Farber stated in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The study pursued two hypotheses, which is why CLTI patients were divided into two cohorts. For cohort 1, which was limited to CLTI patients with an available saphenous vein, it was predicted that surgery would be better than an endovascular approach. For cohort 2, which enrolled patients who needed an alternative conduit, the hypothesis was that endovascular procedures would prove superior.

The study confirmed the first hypothesis, but there was no difference between the two approaches for the composite primary outcome of major adverse limb events (MALE) in the second cohort.
 

Saphenous vein availability determined cohort

Candidates for the BEST-CLI (Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI) trial had to have CLTI producing severe ischemia and to be judged by both surgeons and cardiovascular specialists to be candidates for both types of interventions. Eligible patients were then enrolled in cohort 1 if the saphenous vein was considered the best conduit on imaging. If not, they were enrolled in cohort 2.

Patients were randomized to undergo surgical or endovascular repair only after the cohort was assigned. The primary composite MALE endpoint consisted of an adjudicated first major reintervention, such as new bypass or thrombectomy, an above-the-ankle amputation, or death from any cause.

In cohort 1, the primary composite MALE endpoint was reached in 42.6% of those in surgical arm and 57.4% in the endovascular arm, translating into a 32% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio, 0.68; P < .001) in favor of surgery at the end of a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

The main advantage was the difference in reinterventions. The lower rate in the surgical group (9.2% vs. 23.5%), translated into a 65% relative risk reduction for this endpoint (HR, 035; P < .001).

The reduction in above-ankle amputations in the surgical group (10.4% vs. 14.9%) was also significant (HR, 0.73; P = .04), but the reduction in all-cause mortality (33.0% vs. 37.6%) was not (HR, 0.98; P = .81).

BEST-CLI involved 150 sites in North America, Europe, and New Zealand. Cohort 1, which randomized 1,434 patients, was the larger of the two. In the second cohort, only 396 patients were randomized, which Dr. Farber said “might have been underpowered.”

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with presentation of the results at the meeting.

After a median follow-up of 1.6 years in cohort 2, the slightly lower proportion of patients who reached the composite MALE endpoint in the surgical group relative to the endovascular group (42.8% vs. 47.7%) did not translate into a significant advantage (HR, 0.79; P = .12).

For the individual components, the lower rate of reinterventions in the surgical arm (14.4% vs. 25.6%) did reach statistical significance (HR, 0.47; P = .002), but both amputation (14.9% vs. 14.1%) and all-cause death (26.3% vs. 24.1%) were numerically but not significantly higher in the surgical group.

The primary safety endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This was not significantly different in either cohort. There were also no major differences between groups in the risk of perioperative complications.

Level 1 evidence provided for intervention choice

Overall, BEST-CLI showed that both surgical and endovascular revascularizations are effective and safe, according to Dr. Farber. As a result, he suggested that both can be considered even if a saphenous vein is available when specific patient characteristics make one more attractive than another.

Yet, in a general population with an available saphenous vein, these data provide “level 1 evidence” that a surgical approach should be the dominant choice, he added.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A quality of life (QOL) substudy of BEST-CLI did not challenge this conclusion. Rather, the main finding was that restoring circulation by either approach has a major favorable impact on patient well-being, according to Matthew Menard, MD, codirector of endovascular surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

In this substudy, presented separately from the primary BEST-CLI results, that analysis confirmed that baseline QOL was extremely poor, whether measured with a disease specific instrument such as VascuQol, or generic instruments, such as SF-12.

Surgical or endovascular treatment produced clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in every QOL measure employed, according to Dr. Menard, and this was true in either cohort.
 

Results not necessarily relevant to all

These data are likely relevant to the patients evaluated, but “it is important to consider who made it into this trial,” according to Naomi M. Hamburg, MD, section chief of vascular biology at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Not least, patients had to be candidates for either surgical or endovascular repair to get into the study, omitting those patients not deemed by the investigators to be suited for either.

In addition, Dr. Hamburg pointed out that there was a low enrollment of Blacks (20%) and women (28%), two groups for whom CTLI is a common condition.

Lastly, Dr Hamburg questioned whether specific types of anatomy might be better suited to one procedure relative to another, a variable not considered in this study. Reassured by Dr. Farber that this will be explored in subsequent analyses of BEST-CLI data, Dr. Hamburg expressed interest in learning the results.

Dr. Hamburg was among those who spoke about the growing urgency to optimize strategies for early diagnosis and treatment of CTLI. She plugged the PAD National Action Plan as one of the efforts to thwart the coming wave of CTLI expected from the steep climb in the prevalence of diabetes in the United States.

Dr. Farber reported a financial relationship with Sanifit Therapeutics. The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but received additional support from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Menard reported a financial relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hamburg reported financial relationships with Acceleron Pharma, Merck, NovoNordisk, and Sanifit.

CHICAGO – In patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and a usable saphenous vein segment, a surgical procedure leads to better outcomes than an endovascular approach, according results of the multinational randomized BEST-CLI trial.

In that study, conducted with two cohorts, the advantage of surgery was limited to the group with an available saphenous vein, but in this group the advantage over an endovascular approach was substantial, according to Alik Farber, MD, chief of vascular and endovascular surgery at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Bypass with adequate saphenous vein should be offered as a first-line treatment option for suitable candidates with CLTI as part of fully informed, shared decision-making,” Dr. Farber stated in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The study pursued two hypotheses, which is why CLTI patients were divided into two cohorts. For cohort 1, which was limited to CLTI patients with an available saphenous vein, it was predicted that surgery would be better than an endovascular approach. For cohort 2, which enrolled patients who needed an alternative conduit, the hypothesis was that endovascular procedures would prove superior.

The study confirmed the first hypothesis, but there was no difference between the two approaches for the composite primary outcome of major adverse limb events (MALE) in the second cohort.
 

Saphenous vein availability determined cohort

Candidates for the BEST-CLI (Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI) trial had to have CLTI producing severe ischemia and to be judged by both surgeons and cardiovascular specialists to be candidates for both types of interventions. Eligible patients were then enrolled in cohort 1 if the saphenous vein was considered the best conduit on imaging. If not, they were enrolled in cohort 2.

Patients were randomized to undergo surgical or endovascular repair only after the cohort was assigned. The primary composite MALE endpoint consisted of an adjudicated first major reintervention, such as new bypass or thrombectomy, an above-the-ankle amputation, or death from any cause.

In cohort 1, the primary composite MALE endpoint was reached in 42.6% of those in surgical arm and 57.4% in the endovascular arm, translating into a 32% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio, 0.68; P < .001) in favor of surgery at the end of a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

The main advantage was the difference in reinterventions. The lower rate in the surgical group (9.2% vs. 23.5%), translated into a 65% relative risk reduction for this endpoint (HR, 035; P < .001).

The reduction in above-ankle amputations in the surgical group (10.4% vs. 14.9%) was also significant (HR, 0.73; P = .04), but the reduction in all-cause mortality (33.0% vs. 37.6%) was not (HR, 0.98; P = .81).

BEST-CLI involved 150 sites in North America, Europe, and New Zealand. Cohort 1, which randomized 1,434 patients, was the larger of the two. In the second cohort, only 396 patients were randomized, which Dr. Farber said “might have been underpowered.”

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with presentation of the results at the meeting.

After a median follow-up of 1.6 years in cohort 2, the slightly lower proportion of patients who reached the composite MALE endpoint in the surgical group relative to the endovascular group (42.8% vs. 47.7%) did not translate into a significant advantage (HR, 0.79; P = .12).

For the individual components, the lower rate of reinterventions in the surgical arm (14.4% vs. 25.6%) did reach statistical significance (HR, 0.47; P = .002), but both amputation (14.9% vs. 14.1%) and all-cause death (26.3% vs. 24.1%) were numerically but not significantly higher in the surgical group.

The primary safety endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This was not significantly different in either cohort. There were also no major differences between groups in the risk of perioperative complications.

Level 1 evidence provided for intervention choice

Overall, BEST-CLI showed that both surgical and endovascular revascularizations are effective and safe, according to Dr. Farber. As a result, he suggested that both can be considered even if a saphenous vein is available when specific patient characteristics make one more attractive than another.

Yet, in a general population with an available saphenous vein, these data provide “level 1 evidence” that a surgical approach should be the dominant choice, he added.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A quality of life (QOL) substudy of BEST-CLI did not challenge this conclusion. Rather, the main finding was that restoring circulation by either approach has a major favorable impact on patient well-being, according to Matthew Menard, MD, codirector of endovascular surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

In this substudy, presented separately from the primary BEST-CLI results, that analysis confirmed that baseline QOL was extremely poor, whether measured with a disease specific instrument such as VascuQol, or generic instruments, such as SF-12.

Surgical or endovascular treatment produced clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in every QOL measure employed, according to Dr. Menard, and this was true in either cohort.
 

Results not necessarily relevant to all

These data are likely relevant to the patients evaluated, but “it is important to consider who made it into this trial,” according to Naomi M. Hamburg, MD, section chief of vascular biology at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Not least, patients had to be candidates for either surgical or endovascular repair to get into the study, omitting those patients not deemed by the investigators to be suited for either.

In addition, Dr. Hamburg pointed out that there was a low enrollment of Blacks (20%) and women (28%), two groups for whom CTLI is a common condition.

Lastly, Dr Hamburg questioned whether specific types of anatomy might be better suited to one procedure relative to another, a variable not considered in this study. Reassured by Dr. Farber that this will be explored in subsequent analyses of BEST-CLI data, Dr. Hamburg expressed interest in learning the results.

Dr. Hamburg was among those who spoke about the growing urgency to optimize strategies for early diagnosis and treatment of CTLI. She plugged the PAD National Action Plan as one of the efforts to thwart the coming wave of CTLI expected from the steep climb in the prevalence of diabetes in the United States.

Dr. Farber reported a financial relationship with Sanifit Therapeutics. The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but received additional support from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Menard reported a financial relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hamburg reported financial relationships with Acceleron Pharma, Merck, NovoNordisk, and Sanifit.

CHICAGO – In patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and a usable saphenous vein segment, a surgical procedure leads to better outcomes than an endovascular approach, according results of the multinational randomized BEST-CLI trial.

In that study, conducted with two cohorts, the advantage of surgery was limited to the group with an available saphenous vein, but in this group the advantage over an endovascular approach was substantial, according to Alik Farber, MD, chief of vascular and endovascular surgery at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Bypass with adequate saphenous vein should be offered as a first-line treatment option for suitable candidates with CLTI as part of fully informed, shared decision-making,” Dr. Farber stated in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The study pursued two hypotheses, which is why CLTI patients were divided into two cohorts. For cohort 1, which was limited to CLTI patients with an available saphenous vein, it was predicted that surgery would be better than an endovascular approach. For cohort 2, which enrolled patients who needed an alternative conduit, the hypothesis was that endovascular procedures would prove superior.

The study confirmed the first hypothesis, but there was no difference between the two approaches for the composite primary outcome of major adverse limb events (MALE) in the second cohort.
 

Saphenous vein availability determined cohort

Candidates for the BEST-CLI (Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI) trial had to have CLTI producing severe ischemia and to be judged by both surgeons and cardiovascular specialists to be candidates for both types of interventions. Eligible patients were then enrolled in cohort 1 if the saphenous vein was considered the best conduit on imaging. If not, they were enrolled in cohort 2.

Patients were randomized to undergo surgical or endovascular repair only after the cohort was assigned. The primary composite MALE endpoint consisted of an adjudicated first major reintervention, such as new bypass or thrombectomy, an above-the-ankle amputation, or death from any cause.

In cohort 1, the primary composite MALE endpoint was reached in 42.6% of those in surgical arm and 57.4% in the endovascular arm, translating into a 32% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio, 0.68; P < .001) in favor of surgery at the end of a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

The main advantage was the difference in reinterventions. The lower rate in the surgical group (9.2% vs. 23.5%), translated into a 65% relative risk reduction for this endpoint (HR, 035; P < .001).

The reduction in above-ankle amputations in the surgical group (10.4% vs. 14.9%) was also significant (HR, 0.73; P = .04), but the reduction in all-cause mortality (33.0% vs. 37.6%) was not (HR, 0.98; P = .81).

BEST-CLI involved 150 sites in North America, Europe, and New Zealand. Cohort 1, which randomized 1,434 patients, was the larger of the two. In the second cohort, only 396 patients were randomized, which Dr. Farber said “might have been underpowered.”

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with presentation of the results at the meeting.

After a median follow-up of 1.6 years in cohort 2, the slightly lower proportion of patients who reached the composite MALE endpoint in the surgical group relative to the endovascular group (42.8% vs. 47.7%) did not translate into a significant advantage (HR, 0.79; P = .12).

For the individual components, the lower rate of reinterventions in the surgical arm (14.4% vs. 25.6%) did reach statistical significance (HR, 0.47; P = .002), but both amputation (14.9% vs. 14.1%) and all-cause death (26.3% vs. 24.1%) were numerically but not significantly higher in the surgical group.

The primary safety endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This was not significantly different in either cohort. There were also no major differences between groups in the risk of perioperative complications.

Level 1 evidence provided for intervention choice

Overall, BEST-CLI showed that both surgical and endovascular revascularizations are effective and safe, according to Dr. Farber. As a result, he suggested that both can be considered even if a saphenous vein is available when specific patient characteristics make one more attractive than another.

Yet, in a general population with an available saphenous vein, these data provide “level 1 evidence” that a surgical approach should be the dominant choice, he added.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A quality of life (QOL) substudy of BEST-CLI did not challenge this conclusion. Rather, the main finding was that restoring circulation by either approach has a major favorable impact on patient well-being, according to Matthew Menard, MD, codirector of endovascular surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

In this substudy, presented separately from the primary BEST-CLI results, that analysis confirmed that baseline QOL was extremely poor, whether measured with a disease specific instrument such as VascuQol, or generic instruments, such as SF-12.

Surgical or endovascular treatment produced clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in every QOL measure employed, according to Dr. Menard, and this was true in either cohort.
 

Results not necessarily relevant to all

These data are likely relevant to the patients evaluated, but “it is important to consider who made it into this trial,” according to Naomi M. Hamburg, MD, section chief of vascular biology at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Not least, patients had to be candidates for either surgical or endovascular repair to get into the study, omitting those patients not deemed by the investigators to be suited for either.

In addition, Dr. Hamburg pointed out that there was a low enrollment of Blacks (20%) and women (28%), two groups for whom CTLI is a common condition.

Lastly, Dr Hamburg questioned whether specific types of anatomy might be better suited to one procedure relative to another, a variable not considered in this study. Reassured by Dr. Farber that this will be explored in subsequent analyses of BEST-CLI data, Dr. Hamburg expressed interest in learning the results.

Dr. Hamburg was among those who spoke about the growing urgency to optimize strategies for early diagnosis and treatment of CTLI. She plugged the PAD National Action Plan as one of the efforts to thwart the coming wave of CTLI expected from the steep climb in the prevalence of diabetes in the United States.

Dr. Farber reported a financial relationship with Sanifit Therapeutics. The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but received additional support from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Menard reported a financial relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hamburg reported financial relationships with Acceleron Pharma, Merck, NovoNordisk, and Sanifit.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.