Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease as well as mortality.

South_agency/Getty Images

Such patients are likely to have compromised immune systems, making them respond poorly to vaccines, as has been seen in studies involving pneumococcal, hepatitis B, and influenza A and B vaccination. 

In order to determine if vaccination against COVID-19 disease will be effective among these patients, researchers performed a study to determine the efficacy of a single COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL. They found that the response rate of patients with CLL to vaccination was significantly lower than that of healthy controls, according to the study published in Blood Advances.

Study details

The study (NCT04746092) assessed the humoral immune responses to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Pfizer) vaccination in adult patients with CLL and compared responses with those obtained in age-matched healthy controls. Patients received two vaccine doses, 21 days apart, and antibody titers were measured 2-3 weeks after administration of the second dose, according to Yair Herishanu, MD, of the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, and colleagues.

Troubling results

The researchers found an antibody-mediated response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in only 66 of 167 (39.5%) of all patients with CLL. The response rate of 52 of these responding patients with CLL to the vaccine was significantly lower than that occurring in 52 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (52% vs. 100%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.162; P < .001). 

Among the patients with CLL, the response rate was highest in those who obtained clinical remission after treatment (79.2%), followed by 55.2% in treatment-naive patients, and it was only 16% in patients under treatment at the time of vaccination. 

In patients treated with either BTK inhibitors or venetoclax with and without anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were low (16.0% and 13.6%, respectively). In particular, none of the patients exposed to anti-CD20 antibodies less than 12 months prior to vaccination responded, according to the researchers.

Multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of a vaccine response were age (65 years or younger; odds ratio, 3.17; P = .025), sex (women; OR, 3.66; P = .006), lack of active therapy (including treatment naive and previously treated patients; OR 6.59; P < .001), IgG levels 550 mg/dL or greater (OR, 3.70; P = .037), and IgM levels 40mg/dL or greater (OR, 2.92; P = .017). 

Within a median follow-up period of 75 days since the first vaccine dose, none of the CLL patients developed COVID-19 infection, the researchers reported.

“Vaccinated patients with CLL should continue to adhere to masking, social distancing, and vaccination of their close contacts should be strongly recommended. Serological tests after the second injection of the COVID-19 vaccine can provide valuable information to the individual patient and perhaps, may be integrated in future clinical decisions,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest. 

mlesney@mdedge.com 

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease as well as mortality.

South_agency/Getty Images

Such patients are likely to have compromised immune systems, making them respond poorly to vaccines, as has been seen in studies involving pneumococcal, hepatitis B, and influenza A and B vaccination. 

In order to determine if vaccination against COVID-19 disease will be effective among these patients, researchers performed a study to determine the efficacy of a single COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL. They found that the response rate of patients with CLL to vaccination was significantly lower than that of healthy controls, according to the study published in Blood Advances.

Study details

The study (NCT04746092) assessed the humoral immune responses to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Pfizer) vaccination in adult patients with CLL and compared responses with those obtained in age-matched healthy controls. Patients received two vaccine doses, 21 days apart, and antibody titers were measured 2-3 weeks after administration of the second dose, according to Yair Herishanu, MD, of the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, and colleagues.

Troubling results

The researchers found an antibody-mediated response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in only 66 of 167 (39.5%) of all patients with CLL. The response rate of 52 of these responding patients with CLL to the vaccine was significantly lower than that occurring in 52 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (52% vs. 100%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.162; P < .001). 

Among the patients with CLL, the response rate was highest in those who obtained clinical remission after treatment (79.2%), followed by 55.2% in treatment-naive patients, and it was only 16% in patients under treatment at the time of vaccination. 

In patients treated with either BTK inhibitors or venetoclax with and without anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were low (16.0% and 13.6%, respectively). In particular, none of the patients exposed to anti-CD20 antibodies less than 12 months prior to vaccination responded, according to the researchers.

Multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of a vaccine response were age (65 years or younger; odds ratio, 3.17; P = .025), sex (women; OR, 3.66; P = .006), lack of active therapy (including treatment naive and previously treated patients; OR 6.59; P < .001), IgG levels 550 mg/dL or greater (OR, 3.70; P = .037), and IgM levels 40mg/dL or greater (OR, 2.92; P = .017). 

Within a median follow-up period of 75 days since the first vaccine dose, none of the CLL patients developed COVID-19 infection, the researchers reported.

“Vaccinated patients with CLL should continue to adhere to masking, social distancing, and vaccination of their close contacts should be strongly recommended. Serological tests after the second injection of the COVID-19 vaccine can provide valuable information to the individual patient and perhaps, may be integrated in future clinical decisions,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest. 

mlesney@mdedge.com 

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease as well as mortality.

South_agency/Getty Images

Such patients are likely to have compromised immune systems, making them respond poorly to vaccines, as has been seen in studies involving pneumococcal, hepatitis B, and influenza A and B vaccination. 

In order to determine if vaccination against COVID-19 disease will be effective among these patients, researchers performed a study to determine the efficacy of a single COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL. They found that the response rate of patients with CLL to vaccination was significantly lower than that of healthy controls, according to the study published in Blood Advances.

Study details

The study (NCT04746092) assessed the humoral immune responses to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Pfizer) vaccination in adult patients with CLL and compared responses with those obtained in age-matched healthy controls. Patients received two vaccine doses, 21 days apart, and antibody titers were measured 2-3 weeks after administration of the second dose, according to Yair Herishanu, MD, of the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, and colleagues.

Troubling results

The researchers found an antibody-mediated response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in only 66 of 167 (39.5%) of all patients with CLL. The response rate of 52 of these responding patients with CLL to the vaccine was significantly lower than that occurring in 52 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (52% vs. 100%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.162; P < .001). 

Among the patients with CLL, the response rate was highest in those who obtained clinical remission after treatment (79.2%), followed by 55.2% in treatment-naive patients, and it was only 16% in patients under treatment at the time of vaccination. 

In patients treated with either BTK inhibitors or venetoclax with and without anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were low (16.0% and 13.6%, respectively). In particular, none of the patients exposed to anti-CD20 antibodies less than 12 months prior to vaccination responded, according to the researchers.

Multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of a vaccine response were age (65 years or younger; odds ratio, 3.17; P = .025), sex (women; OR, 3.66; P = .006), lack of active therapy (including treatment naive and previously treated patients; OR 6.59; P < .001), IgG levels 550 mg/dL or greater (OR, 3.70; P = .037), and IgM levels 40mg/dL or greater (OR, 2.92; P = .017). 

Within a median follow-up period of 75 days since the first vaccine dose, none of the CLL patients developed COVID-19 infection, the researchers reported.

“Vaccinated patients with CLL should continue to adhere to masking, social distancing, and vaccination of their close contacts should be strongly recommended. Serological tests after the second injection of the COVID-19 vaccine can provide valuable information to the individual patient and perhaps, may be integrated in future clinical decisions,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest. 

mlesney@mdedge.com 

Significant improvement in the control of symptoms related to paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) is resurrecting etripamil as a self-administered nasal spray a year after it failed to meet the primary endpoint in a phase 3 trial, according to a new analysis from this same study presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Thinkstock

In the phase 3 NODE-301 trial, presented at the 2020 Heart Rhythm Society annual meeting, etripamil did not show an advantage over placebo at 5 hours for achieving sinus rhythm. Nevertheless, a new presentation of the secondary outcomes suggests substantial clinical benefit.

These advantages include significant reductions in PSVT symptoms, a trend for fewer emergency room visits, and a degree of patient satisfaction that appears meaningful, according to Bruce S. Stambler, MD, an electrophysiologist affiliated with Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta.

The data, despite the phase 3 trial results, “support continued development of etripamil nasal spray acute treatment of PSVT,” Dr. Stambler said.
Etripamil is an L-type calcium channel blocker. When administered by nasal spray, it reaches peak effects within about 10 minutes. But the action is short, with a decline in antiarrhythmia effects beginning about 30 minutes after the peak effect. 

In the NODE-301 trial, which employed a 2:1 randomization ratio, 138 patients self-administered 70 mg of etripamil or placebo immediately upon experiencing a suspected episode of PSVT.

Up until 45 minutes, the proportion of episodes that converted to sinus rhythm was about 66% greater (hazard ratio, 1.66; P = .02) on etripamil than placebo, but the advantage was then lost. By predefined primary endpoint of 5 hours, when 100% of placebo patients but not all etripamil patients had converted, there was a slight but nonstatistical advantage for placebo (HR 1.08; P = .1212).

However, because of the rapid onset and then the rapid offset of this agent, the 5-hour time point for comparing effects might not have been the optimal duration to compare effects, according to Dr. Stambler.

On the basis of safety of etripamil, which was not associated with any significant adverse events in NODE-301, and the early clinical effect, the investigators have looked again at the data.

For relief of patient-reported symptoms and patient-reported satisfaction, which were secondary endpoints of the study, the data support a clinical role, according to this new analysis. 

Specifically, there were large differences on a 7-point scale for all of the measured symptoms of PSVT in favor of etripamil, including rapid pulse (P = .002), palpitations (P = .0001), dizziness (P = 0.01), shortness of breath (P = 0.008), and anxiety (P = 0.006). A numerical advantage for chest pain did not reach significance.

“In general, patients reported scores of 4 to 5 on this scale, which corresponds to ‘not satisfied’ to ‘satisfied,’ while the placebo-treated patients reported scores of 2 to 3, which corresponds to ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied,’ ” Dr. Stambler reported.

The favorable patient experience is also reflected in the Treatment Satisfaction with Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9), which was another NODE-301 endpoint. Evaluated when patients were still blinded to their assigned therapy, the advantage of etripamil over placebo for both global satisfaction (P = .007) and treatment effectiveness (P = .002) were also highly statistically significant.

The subjective experience of patients appeared to be reflected in objective measures. When the two groups were compared for interventions in an emergency room, the need was reduced by about half (12.1% vs. 24.5%; P = .051) among those treated with etripamil. Although this just missed the conventional measure of statistical significance, it was close. Similarly, patients randomized to etripamil required numerically fewer rescue medications (14.0% vs. 26.5%; P = .059). 

Adenosine was the most common of the rescue medications, according to Dr. Stambler. He said there was no difference between the groups in use of rescue oral therapies.

When comparing etripamil and placebo in the subgroup that did visit an emergency room for PSVT, there was a delay in ER visits among those randomized to etripamil (116 vs. 79 minutes; P < 0.05), suggesting that this agent reduced the sense of urgency when PSVT symptoms develop, according to Dr. Stambler.

On average, the patients who enrolled in this trial had a PSVT history of about 1.5 years. In the year prior to enrollment, the mean number of ER visits was about nine. 

In the trial design, patients were required to take a test dose of etripamil under observation by a physician before being sent home with their assigned therapy, but Dr. Stambler does not believe that the requirement, if the drug is approved, will be in the label. 

Unexpectedly, many patients had symptom relief even without converting to sinus rhythm, Dr. Stambler acknowledged. He speculated that the reduction in heart rate associated with etripamil might have provided a relief of symptoms sufficient to relieve anxiety, producing the relative advantage for patient satisfaction.

Jodie L. Hurwitz, MD, director of the electrophysiology lab at Medical City Hospital, Dallas, indicated that there is a need for new options for PSVT. An expert panelist during the session where these data were presented, she was particularly interested in rapid symptom relief. 

“It would be great to have a therapy that could be self-administered at home. Patients would like it, too,” she said. 

Mary N. Walsh, MD, a heart failure specialist affiliated with Indiana University, Indianapolis, sees a potential role of a self-administered therapy like etripamil in conjunction with wearable devices. She noted that the proportion of patients using these devices to monitor arrhythmias is increasing, providing a role for an easily transportable therapy that could be used quickly when symptoms develop. 

However, after the negative phase 3 trial, more data must now be collected to satisfy the regulatory authorities that this agent is safe and effective. Dr. Stambler said that the developer is now committed to pursue these studies.

Dr. Stambler has a financial relationship with Milestone Pharmaceuticals, which is developing etripamil nasal spray and was the sponsor of this trial. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Hurwitz have no potential relevant conflicts of interest.
 

Significant improvement in the control of symptoms related to paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) is resurrecting etripamil as a self-administered nasal spray a year after it failed to meet the primary endpoint in a phase 3 trial, according to a new analysis from this same study presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Thinkstock

In the phase 3 NODE-301 trial, presented at the 2020 Heart Rhythm Society annual meeting, etripamil did not show an advantage over placebo at 5 hours for achieving sinus rhythm. Nevertheless, a new presentation of the secondary outcomes suggests substantial clinical benefit.

These advantages include significant reductions in PSVT symptoms, a trend for fewer emergency room visits, and a degree of patient satisfaction that appears meaningful, according to Bruce S. Stambler, MD, an electrophysiologist affiliated with Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta.

The data, despite the phase 3 trial results, “support continued development of etripamil nasal spray acute treatment of PSVT,” Dr. Stambler said.
Etripamil is an L-type calcium channel blocker. When administered by nasal spray, it reaches peak effects within about 10 minutes. But the action is short, with a decline in antiarrhythmia effects beginning about 30 minutes after the peak effect. 

In the NODE-301 trial, which employed a 2:1 randomization ratio, 138 patients self-administered 70 mg of etripamil or placebo immediately upon experiencing a suspected episode of PSVT.

Up until 45 minutes, the proportion of episodes that converted to sinus rhythm was about 66% greater (hazard ratio, 1.66; P = .02) on etripamil than placebo, but the advantage was then lost. By predefined primary endpoint of 5 hours, when 100% of placebo patients but not all etripamil patients had converted, there was a slight but nonstatistical advantage for placebo (HR 1.08; P = .1212).

However, because of the rapid onset and then the rapid offset of this agent, the 5-hour time point for comparing effects might not have been the optimal duration to compare effects, according to Dr. Stambler.

On the basis of safety of etripamil, which was not associated with any significant adverse events in NODE-301, and the early clinical effect, the investigators have looked again at the data.

For relief of patient-reported symptoms and patient-reported satisfaction, which were secondary endpoints of the study, the data support a clinical role, according to this new analysis. 

Specifically, there were large differences on a 7-point scale for all of the measured symptoms of PSVT in favor of etripamil, including rapid pulse (P = .002), palpitations (P = .0001), dizziness (P = 0.01), shortness of breath (P = 0.008), and anxiety (P = 0.006). A numerical advantage for chest pain did not reach significance.

“In general, patients reported scores of 4 to 5 on this scale, which corresponds to ‘not satisfied’ to ‘satisfied,’ while the placebo-treated patients reported scores of 2 to 3, which corresponds to ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied,’ ” Dr. Stambler reported.

The favorable patient experience is also reflected in the Treatment Satisfaction with Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9), which was another NODE-301 endpoint. Evaluated when patients were still blinded to their assigned therapy, the advantage of etripamil over placebo for both global satisfaction (P = .007) and treatment effectiveness (P = .002) were also highly statistically significant.

The subjective experience of patients appeared to be reflected in objective measures. When the two groups were compared for interventions in an emergency room, the need was reduced by about half (12.1% vs. 24.5%; P = .051) among those treated with etripamil. Although this just missed the conventional measure of statistical significance, it was close. Similarly, patients randomized to etripamil required numerically fewer rescue medications (14.0% vs. 26.5%; P = .059). 

Adenosine was the most common of the rescue medications, according to Dr. Stambler. He said there was no difference between the groups in use of rescue oral therapies.

When comparing etripamil and placebo in the subgroup that did visit an emergency room for PSVT, there was a delay in ER visits among those randomized to etripamil (116 vs. 79 minutes; P < 0.05), suggesting that this agent reduced the sense of urgency when PSVT symptoms develop, according to Dr. Stambler.

On average, the patients who enrolled in this trial had a PSVT history of about 1.5 years. In the year prior to enrollment, the mean number of ER visits was about nine. 

In the trial design, patients were required to take a test dose of etripamil under observation by a physician before being sent home with their assigned therapy, but Dr. Stambler does not believe that the requirement, if the drug is approved, will be in the label. 

Unexpectedly, many patients had symptom relief even without converting to sinus rhythm, Dr. Stambler acknowledged. He speculated that the reduction in heart rate associated with etripamil might have provided a relief of symptoms sufficient to relieve anxiety, producing the relative advantage for patient satisfaction.

Jodie L. Hurwitz, MD, director of the electrophysiology lab at Medical City Hospital, Dallas, indicated that there is a need for new options for PSVT. An expert panelist during the session where these data were presented, she was particularly interested in rapid symptom relief. 

“It would be great to have a therapy that could be self-administered at home. Patients would like it, too,” she said. 

Mary N. Walsh, MD, a heart failure specialist affiliated with Indiana University, Indianapolis, sees a potential role of a self-administered therapy like etripamil in conjunction with wearable devices. She noted that the proportion of patients using these devices to monitor arrhythmias is increasing, providing a role for an easily transportable therapy that could be used quickly when symptoms develop. 

However, after the negative phase 3 trial, more data must now be collected to satisfy the regulatory authorities that this agent is safe and effective. Dr. Stambler said that the developer is now committed to pursue these studies.

Dr. Stambler has a financial relationship with Milestone Pharmaceuticals, which is developing etripamil nasal spray and was the sponsor of this trial. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Hurwitz have no potential relevant conflicts of interest.
 

Significant improvement in the control of symptoms related to paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) is resurrecting etripamil as a self-administered nasal spray a year after it failed to meet the primary endpoint in a phase 3 trial, according to a new analysis from this same study presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

Thinkstock

In the phase 3 NODE-301 trial, presented at the 2020 Heart Rhythm Society annual meeting, etripamil did not show an advantage over placebo at 5 hours for achieving sinus rhythm. Nevertheless, a new presentation of the secondary outcomes suggests substantial clinical benefit.

These advantages include significant reductions in PSVT symptoms, a trend for fewer emergency room visits, and a degree of patient satisfaction that appears meaningful, according to Bruce S. Stambler, MD, an electrophysiologist affiliated with Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta.

The data, despite the phase 3 trial results, “support continued development of etripamil nasal spray acute treatment of PSVT,” Dr. Stambler said.
Etripamil is an L-type calcium channel blocker. When administered by nasal spray, it reaches peak effects within about 10 minutes. But the action is short, with a decline in antiarrhythmia effects beginning about 30 minutes after the peak effect. 

In the NODE-301 trial, which employed a 2:1 randomization ratio, 138 patients self-administered 70 mg of etripamil or placebo immediately upon experiencing a suspected episode of PSVT.

Up until 45 minutes, the proportion of episodes that converted to sinus rhythm was about 66% greater (hazard ratio, 1.66; P = .02) on etripamil than placebo, but the advantage was then lost. By predefined primary endpoint of 5 hours, when 100% of placebo patients but not all etripamil patients had converted, there was a slight but nonstatistical advantage for placebo (HR 1.08; P = .1212).

However, because of the rapid onset and then the rapid offset of this agent, the 5-hour time point for comparing effects might not have been the optimal duration to compare effects, according to Dr. Stambler.

On the basis of safety of etripamil, which was not associated with any significant adverse events in NODE-301, and the early clinical effect, the investigators have looked again at the data.

For relief of patient-reported symptoms and patient-reported satisfaction, which were secondary endpoints of the study, the data support a clinical role, according to this new analysis. 

Specifically, there were large differences on a 7-point scale for all of the measured symptoms of PSVT in favor of etripamil, including rapid pulse (P = .002), palpitations (P = .0001), dizziness (P = 0.01), shortness of breath (P = 0.008), and anxiety (P = 0.006). A numerical advantage for chest pain did not reach significance.

“In general, patients reported scores of 4 to 5 on this scale, which corresponds to ‘not satisfied’ to ‘satisfied,’ while the placebo-treated patients reported scores of 2 to 3, which corresponds to ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied,’ ” Dr. Stambler reported.

The favorable patient experience is also reflected in the Treatment Satisfaction with Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9), which was another NODE-301 endpoint. Evaluated when patients were still blinded to their assigned therapy, the advantage of etripamil over placebo for both global satisfaction (P = .007) and treatment effectiveness (P = .002) were also highly statistically significant.

The subjective experience of patients appeared to be reflected in objective measures. When the two groups were compared for interventions in an emergency room, the need was reduced by about half (12.1% vs. 24.5%; P = .051) among those treated with etripamil. Although this just missed the conventional measure of statistical significance, it was close. Similarly, patients randomized to etripamil required numerically fewer rescue medications (14.0% vs. 26.5%; P = .059). 

Adenosine was the most common of the rescue medications, according to Dr. Stambler. He said there was no difference between the groups in use of rescue oral therapies.

When comparing etripamil and placebo in the subgroup that did visit an emergency room for PSVT, there was a delay in ER visits among those randomized to etripamil (116 vs. 79 minutes; P < 0.05), suggesting that this agent reduced the sense of urgency when PSVT symptoms develop, according to Dr. Stambler.

On average, the patients who enrolled in this trial had a PSVT history of about 1.5 years. In the year prior to enrollment, the mean number of ER visits was about nine. 

In the trial design, patients were required to take a test dose of etripamil under observation by a physician before being sent home with their assigned therapy, but Dr. Stambler does not believe that the requirement, if the drug is approved, will be in the label. 

Unexpectedly, many patients had symptom relief even without converting to sinus rhythm, Dr. Stambler acknowledged. He speculated that the reduction in heart rate associated with etripamil might have provided a relief of symptoms sufficient to relieve anxiety, producing the relative advantage for patient satisfaction.

Jodie L. Hurwitz, MD, director of the electrophysiology lab at Medical City Hospital, Dallas, indicated that there is a need for new options for PSVT. An expert panelist during the session where these data were presented, she was particularly interested in rapid symptom relief. 

“It would be great to have a therapy that could be self-administered at home. Patients would like it, too,” she said. 

Mary N. Walsh, MD, a heart failure specialist affiliated with Indiana University, Indianapolis, sees a potential role of a self-administered therapy like etripamil in conjunction with wearable devices. She noted that the proportion of patients using these devices to monitor arrhythmias is increasing, providing a role for an easily transportable therapy that could be used quickly when symptoms develop. 

However, after the negative phase 3 trial, more data must now be collected to satisfy the regulatory authorities that this agent is safe and effective. Dr. Stambler said that the developer is now committed to pursue these studies.

Dr. Stambler has a financial relationship with Milestone Pharmaceuticals, which is developing etripamil nasal spray and was the sponsor of this trial. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Hurwitz have no potential relevant conflicts of interest.
 

Left atrial appendage occlusion performed at the time of other heart surgery reduces the risk for stroke by about one-third in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to results of the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study III (LAAOS III).

At 3.8 years’ follow-up, the primary endpoint of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 4.8% of patients randomly assigned to left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) and 7.0% of those with no occlusion. This translated into a 33% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.85; P = .001).

In a landmark analysis, the effect was present early on but was more pronounced after the first 30 days, reducing the relative risk by 42% (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80), the researchers report.

The reduction in ongoing stroke risk was on top of oral anticoagulation (OAC) and consistent across all subgroups, Richard Whitlock, MD, PhD, professor of surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., reported in a late-breaking trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The procedure was safe and added, on average, just 6 minutes to cardiopulmonary bypass time, according to the results, simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Any patient who comes to the operating room who fits the profile of a LAAOS III patient – so has atrial fibrillation and an elevated stroke risk based on their CHA₂DS₂-VASc score – the appendage should come off,” he said in an interview.

Commenting during the formal discussion, panelist Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Health Care System in Houston, said, “This is potentially a game-changing, practice-changing study” but asked if there are any patients who shouldn’t undergo LAAO, such as those with heart failure (HF).

Dr. Whitlock said about 10%-15% of patients coming for heart surgery have a history of AFib and “as surgeons, you do need to individualize therapy. If you have a very frail patient, have concerns about tissue quality, you really need to think about how you would occlude the left atrial appendage or if you would occlude.”

Reassuringly, he noted, the data show no increase in HF hospitalizations and a beneficial effect on stroke among patients with HF and those with low ejection fractions, below 50%.

Observational data on surgical occlusion have been inconsistent, and current guidelines offer a weak recommendation in patients with AFib who have a contraindication to long-term anticoagulation. This is the first study to definitively prove that ischemic stroke is reduced by managing the left atrial appendage, he said in an interview.

“The previous percutaneous trials failed to demonstrate that; they demonstrated noninferiority but it was driven primarily by the avoidance of hemorrhagic events or strokes through taking patients off oral anticoagulation,” he said.

The results should translate into a class I guideline recommendation, he added. “This opens up a new paradigm of treatment for atrial fibrillation and stroke prevention in that it is really the first study that has looked at the additive effects of managing the left atrial appendage in addition to oral anticoagulation, and it’s protective on top of oral anticoagulation. That is a paradigm shift.”

In an accompanying editorial, Richard L. Page, MD, University of Vermont in Burlington, said the trial provides no insight on the possible benefit of surgical occlusion in patients unable to receive anticoagulation or with a lower CHA2DS2-VASc score, but he agreed a class I recommendation is likely for the population studied.

“I hope and anticipate that the results of this paper will strengthen the guideline indications for surgical left atrial appendage occlusion and will increase the number of cardiac surgeons who routinely perform this add-on procedure,” he said. “While many already perform this procedure, cardiac surgeons should now feel more comfortable that surgical left atrial appendage occlusion is indicated and supported by high-quality randomized data.”

Unfortunately, LAAOS III does not answer the question of whether patients can come off anticoagulation, but it does show surgical occlusion provides added protection from strokes, which can be huge with atrial fibrillation, Dr. Whitlock said.

“I spoke with a patient today who is an active 66-year-old individual on a [direct oral anticoagulant], and his stroke risk has been further reduced by 30%-40%, so he was ecstatic to hear the results,” Dr. Whitlock said. “I think it’s peace of mind.”

Global, nonindustry effort

LAAOS III investigators at 105 centers in 27 countries enrolled 4,811 patients undergoing cardiac surgery (mean age, 71 years; 68% male) who had a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of at least 2.

In all, 4,770 were randomly assigned to no LAAO or occlusion via the preferred technique of amputation with suture closure of the stump as well as stapler occlusion, or epicardial device closure with the AtriClip (AtriCure) or TigerPaw (Maquet Medical). The treating team, researchers, and patients were blinded to assignment.

Patients were followed every 6 months with a validated stroke questionnaire. The trial was stopped early by the data safety monitoring board after the second interim analysis.

The mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4.2, one-third of patients had permanent AFib, 9% had a history of stroke, and more than two-thirds underwent a valve procedure, which makes LAAOS III unique, as many previous trials excluded valvular AFib, Dr. Whitlock pointed out.

Operative outcomes in the LAAO and no-LAAO groups were as follows:

• Bypass time: mean, 119 minutes vs. 113 minutes.  
• Cross-clamp time: mean, 86 minutes vs. 82 minutes.
• Chest tube output: median, 520 mL vs. 500 mL.
• Reoperation for bleeding: both, 4.0%.
• Prolonged hospitalization due to HF: 5 vs. 14 events.
• 30-day mortality: 3.7% vs 4.0%.

The primary safety outcome of HF hospitalization at 3.8 years occurred in 7.7% of patients with LAAO and 6.8% without occlusion (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.40), despite concerns that taking off the appendage could worsen HF risk by impairing renal clearance of salt and water.

“There’s observational data on either side of the fence, so it was an important endpoint that people were concerned about,” Dr. Whitlock told this news organization. “We had a data collection firm dedicated to admission for heart failure to really tease that out and, in the end, we saw no adverse effect.”

Although rates of ischemic stroke at 3.8 years were lower with LAAO than without (4.2% vs. 6.6%; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.80), there was no difference in systemic embolism (0.3% for both) or death (22.6% vs. 22.5%).

In LAAOS III, fewer than 2% of the deaths were attributed to stroke, which is consistent with large stroke registries, Dr. Whitlock said. “Stroke is not what causes people with atrial fibrillation to die; it’s actually the progression on to heart failure.”

The positive effect on stroke was consistent across all subgroups, including sex, age, rheumatic heart disease, type of OAC at baseline, CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (≤4 vs. >4), type of surgery, history of heart failure or hypertension, and prior stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism.

Panelist Anne B. Curtis, MD, State University of New York at Buffalo, expressed surprise that about half of patients at baseline were not receiving anticoagulation and questioned whether event rates varied among those who did and didn’t stay on OAC.

Dr. Whitlock noted that OAC is often underused in AFib and that analyses showed the effects were consistent whether patients were on or off anticoagulants.

The study was sponsored by the Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University. Dr. Whitlock reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Curtis reported consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott, Janssen, Medtronic, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi Aventis, and data safety monitoring board participation for Medtronic.
 

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

Left atrial appendage occlusion performed at the time of other heart surgery reduces the risk for stroke by about one-third in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to results of the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study III (LAAOS III).

At 3.8 years’ follow-up, the primary endpoint of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 4.8% of patients randomly assigned to left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) and 7.0% of those with no occlusion. This translated into a 33% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.85; P = .001).

In a landmark analysis, the effect was present early on but was more pronounced after the first 30 days, reducing the relative risk by 42% (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80), the researchers report.

The reduction in ongoing stroke risk was on top of oral anticoagulation (OAC) and consistent across all subgroups, Richard Whitlock, MD, PhD, professor of surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., reported in a late-breaking trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The procedure was safe and added, on average, just 6 minutes to cardiopulmonary bypass time, according to the results, simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Any patient who comes to the operating room who fits the profile of a LAAOS III patient – so has atrial fibrillation and an elevated stroke risk based on their CHA₂DS₂-VASc score – the appendage should come off,” he said in an interview.

Commenting during the formal discussion, panelist Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Health Care System in Houston, said, “This is potentially a game-changing, practice-changing study” but asked if there are any patients who shouldn’t undergo LAAO, such as those with heart failure (HF).

Dr. Whitlock said about 10%-15% of patients coming for heart surgery have a history of AFib and “as surgeons, you do need to individualize therapy. If you have a very frail patient, have concerns about tissue quality, you really need to think about how you would occlude the left atrial appendage or if you would occlude.”

Reassuringly, he noted, the data show no increase in HF hospitalizations and a beneficial effect on stroke among patients with HF and those with low ejection fractions, below 50%.

Observational data on surgical occlusion have been inconsistent, and current guidelines offer a weak recommendation in patients with AFib who have a contraindication to long-term anticoagulation. This is the first study to definitively prove that ischemic stroke is reduced by managing the left atrial appendage, he said in an interview.

“The previous percutaneous trials failed to demonstrate that; they demonstrated noninferiority but it was driven primarily by the avoidance of hemorrhagic events or strokes through taking patients off oral anticoagulation,” he said.

The results should translate into a class I guideline recommendation, he added. “This opens up a new paradigm of treatment for atrial fibrillation and stroke prevention in that it is really the first study that has looked at the additive effects of managing the left atrial appendage in addition to oral anticoagulation, and it’s protective on top of oral anticoagulation. That is a paradigm shift.”

In an accompanying editorial, Richard L. Page, MD, University of Vermont in Burlington, said the trial provides no insight on the possible benefit of surgical occlusion in patients unable to receive anticoagulation or with a lower CHA2DS2-VASc score, but he agreed a class I recommendation is likely for the population studied.

“I hope and anticipate that the results of this paper will strengthen the guideline indications for surgical left atrial appendage occlusion and will increase the number of cardiac surgeons who routinely perform this add-on procedure,” he said. “While many already perform this procedure, cardiac surgeons should now feel more comfortable that surgical left atrial appendage occlusion is indicated and supported by high-quality randomized data.”

Unfortunately, LAAOS III does not answer the question of whether patients can come off anticoagulation, but it does show surgical occlusion provides added protection from strokes, which can be huge with atrial fibrillation, Dr. Whitlock said.

“I spoke with a patient today who is an active 66-year-old individual on a [direct oral anticoagulant], and his stroke risk has been further reduced by 30%-40%, so he was ecstatic to hear the results,” Dr. Whitlock said. “I think it’s peace of mind.”

Global, nonindustry effort

LAAOS III investigators at 105 centers in 27 countries enrolled 4,811 patients undergoing cardiac surgery (mean age, 71 years; 68% male) who had a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of at least 2.

In all, 4,770 were randomly assigned to no LAAO or occlusion via the preferred technique of amputation with suture closure of the stump as well as stapler occlusion, or epicardial device closure with the AtriClip (AtriCure) or TigerPaw (Maquet Medical). The treating team, researchers, and patients were blinded to assignment.

Patients were followed every 6 months with a validated stroke questionnaire. The trial was stopped early by the data safety monitoring board after the second interim analysis.

The mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4.2, one-third of patients had permanent AFib, 9% had a history of stroke, and more than two-thirds underwent a valve procedure, which makes LAAOS III unique, as many previous trials excluded valvular AFib, Dr. Whitlock pointed out.

Operative outcomes in the LAAO and no-LAAO groups were as follows:

• Bypass time: mean, 119 minutes vs. 113 minutes.  
• Cross-clamp time: mean, 86 minutes vs. 82 minutes.
• Chest tube output: median, 520 mL vs. 500 mL.
• Reoperation for bleeding: both, 4.0%.
• Prolonged hospitalization due to HF: 5 vs. 14 events.
• 30-day mortality: 3.7% vs 4.0%.

The primary safety outcome of HF hospitalization at 3.8 years occurred in 7.7% of patients with LAAO and 6.8% without occlusion (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.40), despite concerns that taking off the appendage could worsen HF risk by impairing renal clearance of salt and water.

“There’s observational data on either side of the fence, so it was an important endpoint that people were concerned about,” Dr. Whitlock told this news organization. “We had a data collection firm dedicated to admission for heart failure to really tease that out and, in the end, we saw no adverse effect.”

Although rates of ischemic stroke at 3.8 years were lower with LAAO than without (4.2% vs. 6.6%; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.80), there was no difference in systemic embolism (0.3% for both) or death (22.6% vs. 22.5%).

In LAAOS III, fewer than 2% of the deaths were attributed to stroke, which is consistent with large stroke registries, Dr. Whitlock said. “Stroke is not what causes people with atrial fibrillation to die; it’s actually the progression on to heart failure.”

The positive effect on stroke was consistent across all subgroups, including sex, age, rheumatic heart disease, type of OAC at baseline, CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (≤4 vs. >4), type of surgery, history of heart failure or hypertension, and prior stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism.

Panelist Anne B. Curtis, MD, State University of New York at Buffalo, expressed surprise that about half of patients at baseline were not receiving anticoagulation and questioned whether event rates varied among those who did and didn’t stay on OAC.

Dr. Whitlock noted that OAC is often underused in AFib and that analyses showed the effects were consistent whether patients were on or off anticoagulants.

The study was sponsored by the Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University. Dr. Whitlock reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Curtis reported consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott, Janssen, Medtronic, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi Aventis, and data safety monitoring board participation for Medtronic.
 

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

Left atrial appendage occlusion performed at the time of other heart surgery reduces the risk for stroke by about one-third in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to results of the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study III (LAAOS III).

At 3.8 years’ follow-up, the primary endpoint of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 4.8% of patients randomly assigned to left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) and 7.0% of those with no occlusion. This translated into a 33% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.85; P = .001).

In a landmark analysis, the effect was present early on but was more pronounced after the first 30 days, reducing the relative risk by 42% (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80), the researchers report.

The reduction in ongoing stroke risk was on top of oral anticoagulation (OAC) and consistent across all subgroups, Richard Whitlock, MD, PhD, professor of surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., reported in a late-breaking trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The procedure was safe and added, on average, just 6 minutes to cardiopulmonary bypass time, according to the results, simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Any patient who comes to the operating room who fits the profile of a LAAOS III patient – so has atrial fibrillation and an elevated stroke risk based on their CHA₂DS₂-VASc score – the appendage should come off,” he said in an interview.

Commenting during the formal discussion, panelist Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Health Care System in Houston, said, “This is potentially a game-changing, practice-changing study” but asked if there are any patients who shouldn’t undergo LAAO, such as those with heart failure (HF).

Dr. Whitlock said about 10%-15% of patients coming for heart surgery have a history of AFib and “as surgeons, you do need to individualize therapy. If you have a very frail patient, have concerns about tissue quality, you really need to think about how you would occlude the left atrial appendage or if you would occlude.”

Reassuringly, he noted, the data show no increase in HF hospitalizations and a beneficial effect on stroke among patients with HF and those with low ejection fractions, below 50%.

Observational data on surgical occlusion have been inconsistent, and current guidelines offer a weak recommendation in patients with AFib who have a contraindication to long-term anticoagulation. This is the first study to definitively prove that ischemic stroke is reduced by managing the left atrial appendage, he said in an interview.

“The previous percutaneous trials failed to demonstrate that; they demonstrated noninferiority but it was driven primarily by the avoidance of hemorrhagic events or strokes through taking patients off oral anticoagulation,” he said.

The results should translate into a class I guideline recommendation, he added. “This opens up a new paradigm of treatment for atrial fibrillation and stroke prevention in that it is really the first study that has looked at the additive effects of managing the left atrial appendage in addition to oral anticoagulation, and it’s protective on top of oral anticoagulation. That is a paradigm shift.”

In an accompanying editorial, Richard L. Page, MD, University of Vermont in Burlington, said the trial provides no insight on the possible benefit of surgical occlusion in patients unable to receive anticoagulation or with a lower CHA2DS2-VASc score, but he agreed a class I recommendation is likely for the population studied.

“I hope and anticipate that the results of this paper will strengthen the guideline indications for surgical left atrial appendage occlusion and will increase the number of cardiac surgeons who routinely perform this add-on procedure,” he said. “While many already perform this procedure, cardiac surgeons should now feel more comfortable that surgical left atrial appendage occlusion is indicated and supported by high-quality randomized data.”

Unfortunately, LAAOS III does not answer the question of whether patients can come off anticoagulation, but it does show surgical occlusion provides added protection from strokes, which can be huge with atrial fibrillation, Dr. Whitlock said.

“I spoke with a patient today who is an active 66-year-old individual on a [direct oral anticoagulant], and his stroke risk has been further reduced by 30%-40%, so he was ecstatic to hear the results,” Dr. Whitlock said. “I think it’s peace of mind.”

Global, nonindustry effort

LAAOS III investigators at 105 centers in 27 countries enrolled 4,811 patients undergoing cardiac surgery (mean age, 71 years; 68% male) who had a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of at least 2.

In all, 4,770 were randomly assigned to no LAAO or occlusion via the preferred technique of amputation with suture closure of the stump as well as stapler occlusion, or epicardial device closure with the AtriClip (AtriCure) or TigerPaw (Maquet Medical). The treating team, researchers, and patients were blinded to assignment.

Patients were followed every 6 months with a validated stroke questionnaire. The trial was stopped early by the data safety monitoring board after the second interim analysis.

The mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4.2, one-third of patients had permanent AFib, 9% had a history of stroke, and more than two-thirds underwent a valve procedure, which makes LAAOS III unique, as many previous trials excluded valvular AFib, Dr. Whitlock pointed out.

Operative outcomes in the LAAO and no-LAAO groups were as follows:

• Bypass time: mean, 119 minutes vs. 113 minutes.  
• Cross-clamp time: mean, 86 minutes vs. 82 minutes.
• Chest tube output: median, 520 mL vs. 500 mL.
• Reoperation for bleeding: both, 4.0%.
• Prolonged hospitalization due to HF: 5 vs. 14 events.
• 30-day mortality: 3.7% vs 4.0%.

The primary safety outcome of HF hospitalization at 3.8 years occurred in 7.7% of patients with LAAO and 6.8% without occlusion (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.40), despite concerns that taking off the appendage could worsen HF risk by impairing renal clearance of salt and water.

“There’s observational data on either side of the fence, so it was an important endpoint that people were concerned about,” Dr. Whitlock told this news organization. “We had a data collection firm dedicated to admission for heart failure to really tease that out and, in the end, we saw no adverse effect.”

Although rates of ischemic stroke at 3.8 years were lower with LAAO than without (4.2% vs. 6.6%; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.80), there was no difference in systemic embolism (0.3% for both) or death (22.6% vs. 22.5%).

In LAAOS III, fewer than 2% of the deaths were attributed to stroke, which is consistent with large stroke registries, Dr. Whitlock said. “Stroke is not what causes people with atrial fibrillation to die; it’s actually the progression on to heart failure.”

The positive effect on stroke was consistent across all subgroups, including sex, age, rheumatic heart disease, type of OAC at baseline, CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (≤4 vs. >4), type of surgery, history of heart failure or hypertension, and prior stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism.

Panelist Anne B. Curtis, MD, State University of New York at Buffalo, expressed surprise that about half of patients at baseline were not receiving anticoagulation and questioned whether event rates varied among those who did and didn’t stay on OAC.

Dr. Whitlock noted that OAC is often underused in AFib and that analyses showed the effects were consistent whether patients were on or off anticoagulants.

The study was sponsored by the Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University. Dr. Whitlock reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Curtis reported consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott, Janssen, Medtronic, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi Aventis, and data safety monitoring board participation for Medtronic.
 

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

No significant difference in cardiovascular events or major bleeding was shown between patients with established coronary heart disease assigned to a daily aspirin dose of 81 mg and those receiving a dose of 325 mg in the 15,000-patient ADAPTABLE trial.

Although substantial dose switching occurred in the trial, particularly from the higher to the lower dose, lead investigator W. Schuyler Jones, MD, believes the results support the use of the 81-mg dose in most patients.  

“While we would have liked to see higher adherence to the assigned doses, we think the results of the trial are reliable,” Dr. Jones said in an interview.

The real-world, open-label, pragmatic trial also involved an innovative low-cost design allowing researchers to identify and communicate with eligible patients directly, opening up a new cost-effective method to conduct clinical research going forward.

Dr. Jones, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., presented the ADAPTABLE results at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.   

He noted there were mixed signals in the results. “For example, the main intent-to-treat analysis showed a trend to a lower rate of all-cause death in the 81-mg group, but the subgroup of patients who stayed on the 325-mg dose throughout the study had a lower event rate. But overall, there was no difference.”

Dr. Jones said the investigators had the following take-home messages to patients: “If a patient is already taking 81 mg, staying on this dose is probably right given the similar study results for the primary endpoint and that we didn’t find conclusive evidence that 325 mg is better. But for patients who have tolerated 325 mg long term, then they may want to stay on this dose as it may be associated with moderate benefit.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that, overall, patients who switched doses tended to do worse, but he suggested this may have been more to do with underlying reasons for switching rather than the different dose itself. “For example, switching often happens after bleeding or bruising, which can also often preempt an ischemic event, and other illnesses, such as cancer or atrial fibrillation, can also lead patients to change doses.”

“With the caveat that this trial did not include new patients (the vast majority of patients had been taking aspirin previously) the results support the approach of starting new patients on 81 mg, which is what we have been seeing in evolving clinical practice in recent years,” he added.  

Dr. Jones explained that the trial set out to answer the simple but important question about the best dose of aspirin in patients with heart disease.

“Aspirin has been established as an appropriate long-term medication for patients with ischemic heart disease since the 1980s, but we really don’t have any good information on the correct dose.

He noted that the U.S. guidelines suggest any dose in the range of 81 mg to 325 mg daily can be used, whereas the European guidelines recommend 81 mg daily, although this is mainly based on observational data and expert opinion; there is little hard, randomized-trial evidence.

The ADAPTABLE trial randomly assigned 15,076 patients with established heart disease to receive 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin. Before randomization, 96% of those with available information were already taking aspirin, 85% of whom were taking 81 mg.

After a mean follow-up of 26 months, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke – had occurred in 7.28% of the 81-mg group and 7.51% of the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.14).     

The main safety endpoint, hospitalization for major bleeding with an associated blood transfusion, occurred in 0.63% of the 81-mg group and 0.60% of the 325-mg group (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79-1.77).

“The bleeding safety endpoint looked similar, which may be counterintuitive to what may have been expected,” Dr. Jones commented. “However, the safety endpoint was very stringent. We still haven’t analyzed all the less serious ADR [adverse drug event]/bleeding data, but overall, it does appear to be balanced.”

He added: “Most cardiologists probably may not have expected to see much difference in efficacy between these two doses but would maybe have anticipated a lower bleeding rate with the low dose. I was a little surprised to see such a low bleeding rate in the 325-mg group.”

Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching (41.6%) than those assigned to 81 mg (7.1%) and were more likely to discontinue treatment (11.1% vs. 7.0%). This resulted in fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose in the 325-mg group (434 vs. 650 days).

“This was an open-label study, and such studies always suffer from a degree of infidelity to the assigned treatment group,” Dr. Jones said. “In ADAPTABLE, this was unbalanced in that a much greater number of patients switched from 325 mg to 81 mg than the other way round.”   

“But our results do reflect what happens in normal life,” he added. “People behaved in the study like they do in the real world. They sometimes changed their dose and sometimes stopped taking aspirin altogether. So, I think the results are an accurate representation of the real world.”

A sensitivity analysis based on which dose the patient actually reported taking showed a higher risk for death, MI, or stroke in patients who took 81 mg than those who took 325 mg (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43). But as with any postrandomization analysis, this approach has many inherent biases, Dr. Jones cautioned.
 

Innovative study design  

The ADAPTABLE study used an innovative low-cost design, which involved direct communication with the patients themselves.

Using the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), a group of 40 U.S. centers committed to compiling data in a common format, invitations to enroll in the study were sent to eligible patients identified from medical records. Consent and randomization took place on the patient web portal. 

Participants then purchased aspirin at the assigned dose themselves, and all follow-up was done virtually or on the phone, with outcomes ascertained remotely (from patient reports, electronic medical records, and insurance claims) without adjudication.   

“This is a pretty neat way to do clinical research, enabling us to conduct a 15,000-patient trial on a very tight budget,” Dr. Jones commented. 

He estimated that the trial cost around $18 to $19 million. “No industry funder would have sponsored such a study of aspirin, and a typical trial with this many patients conducted in the traditional way would have cost at least 5 or 10 times more,” he said.

“This is the first time this type of study has been done in the U.S. on such a large scale, and it opens up this method for future research.”

He explained that this design, communicating directly with patients, somewhat limits the questions that can be addressed. “As aspirin is purchased over the counter by patients themselves, this is a question that lent itself to be answered in this way.” 

Another innovative design feature was the inclusion of “patient partners,” with one patient nominated by each center to be part of the organization of the trial. “This helped keep the research relevant to what patients care about.

They also helped with the recruitment strategy and communication with participants. I think this is something we need to continue and prioritize in clinical research going forward,” Dr. Jones noted.

‘Pioneering’ trial

Discussants of the study at the ACC presentation congratulated the investigators on conducting such an innovative trial.

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said, “This is really a pioneering large pragmatic trial, and we’re going to need to see more of these over the next few years. The most important legacy from this trial for me is that you did it, and that you showed us many of the promises and some of the pitfalls of these large pragmatic designs.”

Akshay Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, added: “This was an innovative approach to answering an important question for daily clinical practice.”

On the results of the study, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, “Maybe the outcomes were not too surprising, and I certainly endorse your cautious status quo statement about patients staying on the dose that they are on.”

But he suggested that the bleeding safety outcomes were perhaps a little unexpected, being a little lower in the lower-dose group, and he asked whether there was a sensitivity analysis looking at bleeding on a per protocol basis. Dr. Jones answered that this was planned.

Dr. Desai also raised questions about the “unusual bleeding endpoint,” noting that the rates of bleeding were far lower than would be expected, compared with other clinical trials.

Dr. Jones replied that the bleeding endpoint with blood product transfusion was chosen to allow the researchers to accurately identify these events in claims codes. He said the endpoint probably mirrored the GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) severe bleeding classification.

In an editorial accompanying the publication of ADAPTABLE, Colin Baigent, FMedSci, says the study provides proof of principle that large pragmatic randomized trials can be conducted in the United States.

But Dr. Baigent, who is professor of epidemiology and director of the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), says that the high degree of switching between dosages that occurred during the trial gives rise to some uncertainty about the results.  

“Because switching was not likely to have been at random, bias arising from this degree of crossover could have obscured a true difference in efficacy or safety (or both), and moreover it is also not possible to conclude that the lack of any significant difference between the two dose groups implies equivalence of the effects of the doses,” he writes.

He suggests that a pilot study may have identified a preference for the 81-mg dose and allowed methods to facilitate equipoise, such as a run-in period with both doses, and only patients adhering being considered for randomization.  

But Dr. Baigent concludes that the ADAPTABLE trial is a “major achievement” in that it paves the way for low-cost randomized trials in the United States, which should allow many more clinical questions to be answered.

The trial was supported by an award from the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute.  Dr. Schuyler Jones reports consultant fees/honoraria from Bayer Healthcare and Janssen and research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Baigent reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and National Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work.
 

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

No significant difference in cardiovascular events or major bleeding was shown between patients with established coronary heart disease assigned to a daily aspirin dose of 81 mg and those receiving a dose of 325 mg in the 15,000-patient ADAPTABLE trial.

Although substantial dose switching occurred in the trial, particularly from the higher to the lower dose, lead investigator W. Schuyler Jones, MD, believes the results support the use of the 81-mg dose in most patients.  

“While we would have liked to see higher adherence to the assigned doses, we think the results of the trial are reliable,” Dr. Jones said in an interview.

The real-world, open-label, pragmatic trial also involved an innovative low-cost design allowing researchers to identify and communicate with eligible patients directly, opening up a new cost-effective method to conduct clinical research going forward.

Dr. Jones, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., presented the ADAPTABLE results at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.   

He noted there were mixed signals in the results. “For example, the main intent-to-treat analysis showed a trend to a lower rate of all-cause death in the 81-mg group, but the subgroup of patients who stayed on the 325-mg dose throughout the study had a lower event rate. But overall, there was no difference.”

Dr. Jones said the investigators had the following take-home messages to patients: “If a patient is already taking 81 mg, staying on this dose is probably right given the similar study results for the primary endpoint and that we didn’t find conclusive evidence that 325 mg is better. But for patients who have tolerated 325 mg long term, then they may want to stay on this dose as it may be associated with moderate benefit.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that, overall, patients who switched doses tended to do worse, but he suggested this may have been more to do with underlying reasons for switching rather than the different dose itself. “For example, switching often happens after bleeding or bruising, which can also often preempt an ischemic event, and other illnesses, such as cancer or atrial fibrillation, can also lead patients to change doses.”

“With the caveat that this trial did not include new patients (the vast majority of patients had been taking aspirin previously) the results support the approach of starting new patients on 81 mg, which is what we have been seeing in evolving clinical practice in recent years,” he added.  

Dr. Jones explained that the trial set out to answer the simple but important question about the best dose of aspirin in patients with heart disease.

“Aspirin has been established as an appropriate long-term medication for patients with ischemic heart disease since the 1980s, but we really don’t have any good information on the correct dose.

He noted that the U.S. guidelines suggest any dose in the range of 81 mg to 325 mg daily can be used, whereas the European guidelines recommend 81 mg daily, although this is mainly based on observational data and expert opinion; there is little hard, randomized-trial evidence.

The ADAPTABLE trial randomly assigned 15,076 patients with established heart disease to receive 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin. Before randomization, 96% of those with available information were already taking aspirin, 85% of whom were taking 81 mg.

After a mean follow-up of 26 months, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke – had occurred in 7.28% of the 81-mg group and 7.51% of the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.14).     

The main safety endpoint, hospitalization for major bleeding with an associated blood transfusion, occurred in 0.63% of the 81-mg group and 0.60% of the 325-mg group (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79-1.77).

“The bleeding safety endpoint looked similar, which may be counterintuitive to what may have been expected,” Dr. Jones commented. “However, the safety endpoint was very stringent. We still haven’t analyzed all the less serious ADR [adverse drug event]/bleeding data, but overall, it does appear to be balanced.”

He added: “Most cardiologists probably may not have expected to see much difference in efficacy between these two doses but would maybe have anticipated a lower bleeding rate with the low dose. I was a little surprised to see such a low bleeding rate in the 325-mg group.”

Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching (41.6%) than those assigned to 81 mg (7.1%) and were more likely to discontinue treatment (11.1% vs. 7.0%). This resulted in fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose in the 325-mg group (434 vs. 650 days).

“This was an open-label study, and such studies always suffer from a degree of infidelity to the assigned treatment group,” Dr. Jones said. “In ADAPTABLE, this was unbalanced in that a much greater number of patients switched from 325 mg to 81 mg than the other way round.”   

“But our results do reflect what happens in normal life,” he added. “People behaved in the study like they do in the real world. They sometimes changed their dose and sometimes stopped taking aspirin altogether. So, I think the results are an accurate representation of the real world.”

A sensitivity analysis based on which dose the patient actually reported taking showed a higher risk for death, MI, or stroke in patients who took 81 mg than those who took 325 mg (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43). But as with any postrandomization analysis, this approach has many inherent biases, Dr. Jones cautioned.
 

Innovative study design  

The ADAPTABLE study used an innovative low-cost design, which involved direct communication with the patients themselves.

Using the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), a group of 40 U.S. centers committed to compiling data in a common format, invitations to enroll in the study were sent to eligible patients identified from medical records. Consent and randomization took place on the patient web portal. 

Participants then purchased aspirin at the assigned dose themselves, and all follow-up was done virtually or on the phone, with outcomes ascertained remotely (from patient reports, electronic medical records, and insurance claims) without adjudication.   

“This is a pretty neat way to do clinical research, enabling us to conduct a 15,000-patient trial on a very tight budget,” Dr. Jones commented. 

He estimated that the trial cost around $18 to $19 million. “No industry funder would have sponsored such a study of aspirin, and a typical trial with this many patients conducted in the traditional way would have cost at least 5 or 10 times more,” he said.

“This is the first time this type of study has been done in the U.S. on such a large scale, and it opens up this method for future research.”

He explained that this design, communicating directly with patients, somewhat limits the questions that can be addressed. “As aspirin is purchased over the counter by patients themselves, this is a question that lent itself to be answered in this way.” 

Another innovative design feature was the inclusion of “patient partners,” with one patient nominated by each center to be part of the organization of the trial. “This helped keep the research relevant to what patients care about.

They also helped with the recruitment strategy and communication with participants. I think this is something we need to continue and prioritize in clinical research going forward,” Dr. Jones noted.

‘Pioneering’ trial

Discussants of the study at the ACC presentation congratulated the investigators on conducting such an innovative trial.

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said, “This is really a pioneering large pragmatic trial, and we’re going to need to see more of these over the next few years. The most important legacy from this trial for me is that you did it, and that you showed us many of the promises and some of the pitfalls of these large pragmatic designs.”

Akshay Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, added: “This was an innovative approach to answering an important question for daily clinical practice.”

On the results of the study, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, “Maybe the outcomes were not too surprising, and I certainly endorse your cautious status quo statement about patients staying on the dose that they are on.”

But he suggested that the bleeding safety outcomes were perhaps a little unexpected, being a little lower in the lower-dose group, and he asked whether there was a sensitivity analysis looking at bleeding on a per protocol basis. Dr. Jones answered that this was planned.

Dr. Desai also raised questions about the “unusual bleeding endpoint,” noting that the rates of bleeding were far lower than would be expected, compared with other clinical trials.

Dr. Jones replied that the bleeding endpoint with blood product transfusion was chosen to allow the researchers to accurately identify these events in claims codes. He said the endpoint probably mirrored the GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) severe bleeding classification.

In an editorial accompanying the publication of ADAPTABLE, Colin Baigent, FMedSci, says the study provides proof of principle that large pragmatic randomized trials can be conducted in the United States.

But Dr. Baigent, who is professor of epidemiology and director of the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), says that the high degree of switching between dosages that occurred during the trial gives rise to some uncertainty about the results.  

“Because switching was not likely to have been at random, bias arising from this degree of crossover could have obscured a true difference in efficacy or safety (or both), and moreover it is also not possible to conclude that the lack of any significant difference between the two dose groups implies equivalence of the effects of the doses,” he writes.

He suggests that a pilot study may have identified a preference for the 81-mg dose and allowed methods to facilitate equipoise, such as a run-in period with both doses, and only patients adhering being considered for randomization.  

But Dr. Baigent concludes that the ADAPTABLE trial is a “major achievement” in that it paves the way for low-cost randomized trials in the United States, which should allow many more clinical questions to be answered.

The trial was supported by an award from the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute.  Dr. Schuyler Jones reports consultant fees/honoraria from Bayer Healthcare and Janssen and research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Baigent reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and National Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work.
 

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

No significant difference in cardiovascular events or major bleeding was shown between patients with established coronary heart disease assigned to a daily aspirin dose of 81 mg and those receiving a dose of 325 mg in the 15,000-patient ADAPTABLE trial.

Although substantial dose switching occurred in the trial, particularly from the higher to the lower dose, lead investigator W. Schuyler Jones, MD, believes the results support the use of the 81-mg dose in most patients.  

“While we would have liked to see higher adherence to the assigned doses, we think the results of the trial are reliable,” Dr. Jones said in an interview.

The real-world, open-label, pragmatic trial also involved an innovative low-cost design allowing researchers to identify and communicate with eligible patients directly, opening up a new cost-effective method to conduct clinical research going forward.

Dr. Jones, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., presented the ADAPTABLE results at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.   

He noted there were mixed signals in the results. “For example, the main intent-to-treat analysis showed a trend to a lower rate of all-cause death in the 81-mg group, but the subgroup of patients who stayed on the 325-mg dose throughout the study had a lower event rate. But overall, there was no difference.”

Dr. Jones said the investigators had the following take-home messages to patients: “If a patient is already taking 81 mg, staying on this dose is probably right given the similar study results for the primary endpoint and that we didn’t find conclusive evidence that 325 mg is better. But for patients who have tolerated 325 mg long term, then they may want to stay on this dose as it may be associated with moderate benefit.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that, overall, patients who switched doses tended to do worse, but he suggested this may have been more to do with underlying reasons for switching rather than the different dose itself. “For example, switching often happens after bleeding or bruising, which can also often preempt an ischemic event, and other illnesses, such as cancer or atrial fibrillation, can also lead patients to change doses.”

“With the caveat that this trial did not include new patients (the vast majority of patients had been taking aspirin previously) the results support the approach of starting new patients on 81 mg, which is what we have been seeing in evolving clinical practice in recent years,” he added.  

Dr. Jones explained that the trial set out to answer the simple but important question about the best dose of aspirin in patients with heart disease.

“Aspirin has been established as an appropriate long-term medication for patients with ischemic heart disease since the 1980s, but we really don’t have any good information on the correct dose.

He noted that the U.S. guidelines suggest any dose in the range of 81 mg to 325 mg daily can be used, whereas the European guidelines recommend 81 mg daily, although this is mainly based on observational data and expert opinion; there is little hard, randomized-trial evidence.

The ADAPTABLE trial randomly assigned 15,076 patients with established heart disease to receive 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin. Before randomization, 96% of those with available information were already taking aspirin, 85% of whom were taking 81 mg.

After a mean follow-up of 26 months, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke – had occurred in 7.28% of the 81-mg group and 7.51% of the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.14).     

The main safety endpoint, hospitalization for major bleeding with an associated blood transfusion, occurred in 0.63% of the 81-mg group and 0.60% of the 325-mg group (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79-1.77).

“The bleeding safety endpoint looked similar, which may be counterintuitive to what may have been expected,” Dr. Jones commented. “However, the safety endpoint was very stringent. We still haven’t analyzed all the less serious ADR [adverse drug event]/bleeding data, but overall, it does appear to be balanced.”

He added: “Most cardiologists probably may not have expected to see much difference in efficacy between these two doses but would maybe have anticipated a lower bleeding rate with the low dose. I was a little surprised to see such a low bleeding rate in the 325-mg group.”

Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching (41.6%) than those assigned to 81 mg (7.1%) and were more likely to discontinue treatment (11.1% vs. 7.0%). This resulted in fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose in the 325-mg group (434 vs. 650 days).

“This was an open-label study, and such studies always suffer from a degree of infidelity to the assigned treatment group,” Dr. Jones said. “In ADAPTABLE, this was unbalanced in that a much greater number of patients switched from 325 mg to 81 mg than the other way round.”   

“But our results do reflect what happens in normal life,” he added. “People behaved in the study like they do in the real world. They sometimes changed their dose and sometimes stopped taking aspirin altogether. So, I think the results are an accurate representation of the real world.”

A sensitivity analysis based on which dose the patient actually reported taking showed a higher risk for death, MI, or stroke in patients who took 81 mg than those who took 325 mg (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43). But as with any postrandomization analysis, this approach has many inherent biases, Dr. Jones cautioned.
 

Innovative study design  

The ADAPTABLE study used an innovative low-cost design, which involved direct communication with the patients themselves.

Using the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), a group of 40 U.S. centers committed to compiling data in a common format, invitations to enroll in the study were sent to eligible patients identified from medical records. Consent and randomization took place on the patient web portal. 

Participants then purchased aspirin at the assigned dose themselves, and all follow-up was done virtually or on the phone, with outcomes ascertained remotely (from patient reports, electronic medical records, and insurance claims) without adjudication.   

“This is a pretty neat way to do clinical research, enabling us to conduct a 15,000-patient trial on a very tight budget,” Dr. Jones commented. 

He estimated that the trial cost around $18 to $19 million. “No industry funder would have sponsored such a study of aspirin, and a typical trial with this many patients conducted in the traditional way would have cost at least 5 or 10 times more,” he said.

“This is the first time this type of study has been done in the U.S. on such a large scale, and it opens up this method for future research.”

He explained that this design, communicating directly with patients, somewhat limits the questions that can be addressed. “As aspirin is purchased over the counter by patients themselves, this is a question that lent itself to be answered in this way.” 

Another innovative design feature was the inclusion of “patient partners,” with one patient nominated by each center to be part of the organization of the trial. “This helped keep the research relevant to what patients care about.

They also helped with the recruitment strategy and communication with participants. I think this is something we need to continue and prioritize in clinical research going forward,” Dr. Jones noted.

‘Pioneering’ trial

Discussants of the study at the ACC presentation congratulated the investigators on conducting such an innovative trial.

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said, “This is really a pioneering large pragmatic trial, and we’re going to need to see more of these over the next few years. The most important legacy from this trial for me is that you did it, and that you showed us many of the promises and some of the pitfalls of these large pragmatic designs.”

Akshay Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, added: “This was an innovative approach to answering an important question for daily clinical practice.”

On the results of the study, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, “Maybe the outcomes were not too surprising, and I certainly endorse your cautious status quo statement about patients staying on the dose that they are on.”

But he suggested that the bleeding safety outcomes were perhaps a little unexpected, being a little lower in the lower-dose group, and he asked whether there was a sensitivity analysis looking at bleeding on a per protocol basis. Dr. Jones answered that this was planned.

Dr. Desai also raised questions about the “unusual bleeding endpoint,” noting that the rates of bleeding were far lower than would be expected, compared with other clinical trials.

Dr. Jones replied that the bleeding endpoint with blood product transfusion was chosen to allow the researchers to accurately identify these events in claims codes. He said the endpoint probably mirrored the GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) severe bleeding classification.

In an editorial accompanying the publication of ADAPTABLE, Colin Baigent, FMedSci, says the study provides proof of principle that large pragmatic randomized trials can be conducted in the United States.

But Dr. Baigent, who is professor of epidemiology and director of the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), says that the high degree of switching between dosages that occurred during the trial gives rise to some uncertainty about the results.  

“Because switching was not likely to have been at random, bias arising from this degree of crossover could have obscured a true difference in efficacy or safety (or both), and moreover it is also not possible to conclude that the lack of any significant difference between the two dose groups implies equivalence of the effects of the doses,” he writes.

He suggests that a pilot study may have identified a preference for the 81-mg dose and allowed methods to facilitate equipoise, such as a run-in period with both doses, and only patients adhering being considered for randomization.  

But Dr. Baigent concludes that the ADAPTABLE trial is a “major achievement” in that it paves the way for low-cost randomized trials in the United States, which should allow many more clinical questions to be answered.

The trial was supported by an award from the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute.  Dr. Schuyler Jones reports consultant fees/honoraria from Bayer Healthcare and Janssen and research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Baigent reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and National Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work.
 

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

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, a pillar of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure with below-normal ejection fraction, came suggestively close to showing efficacy for preventing cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients who have just had an MI but have no history of heart failure in a controlled trial with more than 5,600 patients.

Although sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) fell short of producing a significant benefit, it did show good safety that was similar to the study’s comparator treatment, ramipril, an agent from the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor class that is a mainstay of treatment in these patients.

“To say that, with no run-in, sacubitril/valsartan is as well tolerated and as safe as one of the best-studied ACE inhibitors – ramipril – in acutely ill MI patients, is a big statement,” said Marc A. Pfeffer, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. This high level of safety without gradual uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) “should lower barriers” to broader use of the dual-drug formulation for its approved indication in patients with chronic heart failure, especially patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is below normal. In addition, results from the PARADISE-MI trial suggested that “patients seemed to benefit before they develop heart failure. We couldn’t prove that, but we should build on this, and make it easier for patients to use this treatment,” Dr. Pfeffer said during a press briefing following his talk at the sessions.

Preventing heart failures to come

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in acute MI patients within a few days of their event “is perhaps addressing prevention of the heart failure that’s to come,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, designated discussant for the report and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. “Patients who are destined to develop heart failure are beginning their treatment early. The subgroup analyses suggest that it’s the sicker patients who benefited the most,” she said.

But Dr. Pfeffer stressed that “I don’t think this is a subgroup discussion. I would like to pursue this, but that’s up to the sponsor,” Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan.

‘Exceedingly reassuring’ safety

The safety data that Dr. Pfeffer reported “are exceedingly reassuring. We didn’t see a signal of harm, and in some of the exploratory endpoints there was some evidence of benefit, so we need to encourage you to continue,” commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis.

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) trial enrolled 5,669 patients with no history of heart failure within an average of 4 days following an acute MI at 495 sites in 41 countries during 2016-2020, with 8% of enrolled patients from the United States. Patients averaged 64 years of age, about three-quarters were men, about 43% had a history of diabetes, and only 1% were Black; Dr. Pfeffer noted that this is because most patients came from countries with low Black populations. The enrollment criteria required a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 40%, and among the enrolled patients this averaged about 37%.

A 10% nonsignificant relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined first-event rate of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an outpatient visit for heart failure. During a median follow-up of 23 months, this occurred at a rate of 7.4/100 patient years in the ramipril arm and 6.7/100 patient years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, a 10% relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan that was not significant, which meant all other efficacy analyses were exploratory, Dr. Pfeffer stressed.

Several secondary efficacy analyses showed significant benefits from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, including the total number of events that comprised the primary endpoint, with a 21% relative risk reduction associated with sacubitril/valsartan, as well as investigator-reported events. The primary-endpoint benefit from sacubitril/valsartan was also significant in two subgroup analyses: patients aged 65 years or older (roughly half the study cohort), who had a 24% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, and the 88% of patients who received treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention for their acute MI, who had a 19% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients who received ramipril.

The study’s safety data showed nearly identical rates in the two treatment arms for total adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events that led to stopping the study drug, as well as in laboratory measures. The biggest between-treatment differences were a modest excess of hypotension on sacubitril valsartan, 28%, compared with 22% on ramipril, and a modest excess rate of cough on ramipril, 13%, compared with 9% on sacubitril/valsartan.

The added insight the results provide about sacubitril/valsartan comes at a time when U.S. patients continue to struggle to get health insurance coverage for an agent that has been approved for U.S. use in treating heart failure since 2015.

“Our patients do not have access to this important treatment,” declared Dr. Walsh during the press briefing. “The prior authorization process is unbelievable, and some patients have no access unless they pay the full cost on their own. This is an important, real-world problem that we face with this drug.”

PARADISE-MI was sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Pfeffer has received research funding from and is a consultant to Novartis. He is also a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and he holds equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. Dr. Stevenson has received honoraria from LivaNova and has received research support from Abbott. Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, a pillar of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure with below-normal ejection fraction, came suggestively close to showing efficacy for preventing cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients who have just had an MI but have no history of heart failure in a controlled trial with more than 5,600 patients.

Although sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) fell short of producing a significant benefit, it did show good safety that was similar to the study’s comparator treatment, ramipril, an agent from the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor class that is a mainstay of treatment in these patients.

“To say that, with no run-in, sacubitril/valsartan is as well tolerated and as safe as one of the best-studied ACE inhibitors – ramipril – in acutely ill MI patients, is a big statement,” said Marc A. Pfeffer, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. This high level of safety without gradual uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) “should lower barriers” to broader use of the dual-drug formulation for its approved indication in patients with chronic heart failure, especially patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is below normal. In addition, results from the PARADISE-MI trial suggested that “patients seemed to benefit before they develop heart failure. We couldn’t prove that, but we should build on this, and make it easier for patients to use this treatment,” Dr. Pfeffer said during a press briefing following his talk at the sessions.

Preventing heart failures to come

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in acute MI patients within a few days of their event “is perhaps addressing prevention of the heart failure that’s to come,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, designated discussant for the report and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. “Patients who are destined to develop heart failure are beginning their treatment early. The subgroup analyses suggest that it’s the sicker patients who benefited the most,” she said.

But Dr. Pfeffer stressed that “I don’t think this is a subgroup discussion. I would like to pursue this, but that’s up to the sponsor,” Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan.

‘Exceedingly reassuring’ safety

The safety data that Dr. Pfeffer reported “are exceedingly reassuring. We didn’t see a signal of harm, and in some of the exploratory endpoints there was some evidence of benefit, so we need to encourage you to continue,” commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis.

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) trial enrolled 5,669 patients with no history of heart failure within an average of 4 days following an acute MI at 495 sites in 41 countries during 2016-2020, with 8% of enrolled patients from the United States. Patients averaged 64 years of age, about three-quarters were men, about 43% had a history of diabetes, and only 1% were Black; Dr. Pfeffer noted that this is because most patients came from countries with low Black populations. The enrollment criteria required a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 40%, and among the enrolled patients this averaged about 37%.

A 10% nonsignificant relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined first-event rate of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an outpatient visit for heart failure. During a median follow-up of 23 months, this occurred at a rate of 7.4/100 patient years in the ramipril arm and 6.7/100 patient years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, a 10% relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan that was not significant, which meant all other efficacy analyses were exploratory, Dr. Pfeffer stressed.

Several secondary efficacy analyses showed significant benefits from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, including the total number of events that comprised the primary endpoint, with a 21% relative risk reduction associated with sacubitril/valsartan, as well as investigator-reported events. The primary-endpoint benefit from sacubitril/valsartan was also significant in two subgroup analyses: patients aged 65 years or older (roughly half the study cohort), who had a 24% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, and the 88% of patients who received treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention for their acute MI, who had a 19% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients who received ramipril.

The study’s safety data showed nearly identical rates in the two treatment arms for total adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events that led to stopping the study drug, as well as in laboratory measures. The biggest between-treatment differences were a modest excess of hypotension on sacubitril valsartan, 28%, compared with 22% on ramipril, and a modest excess rate of cough on ramipril, 13%, compared with 9% on sacubitril/valsartan.

The added insight the results provide about sacubitril/valsartan comes at a time when U.S. patients continue to struggle to get health insurance coverage for an agent that has been approved for U.S. use in treating heart failure since 2015.

“Our patients do not have access to this important treatment,” declared Dr. Walsh during the press briefing. “The prior authorization process is unbelievable, and some patients have no access unless they pay the full cost on their own. This is an important, real-world problem that we face with this drug.”

PARADISE-MI was sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Pfeffer has received research funding from and is a consultant to Novartis. He is also a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and he holds equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. Dr. Stevenson has received honoraria from LivaNova and has received research support from Abbott. Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, a pillar of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure with below-normal ejection fraction, came suggestively close to showing efficacy for preventing cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients who have just had an MI but have no history of heart failure in a controlled trial with more than 5,600 patients.

Although sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) fell short of producing a significant benefit, it did show good safety that was similar to the study’s comparator treatment, ramipril, an agent from the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor class that is a mainstay of treatment in these patients.

“To say that, with no run-in, sacubitril/valsartan is as well tolerated and as safe as one of the best-studied ACE inhibitors – ramipril – in acutely ill MI patients, is a big statement,” said Marc A. Pfeffer, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. This high level of safety without gradual uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) “should lower barriers” to broader use of the dual-drug formulation for its approved indication in patients with chronic heart failure, especially patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is below normal. In addition, results from the PARADISE-MI trial suggested that “patients seemed to benefit before they develop heart failure. We couldn’t prove that, but we should build on this, and make it easier for patients to use this treatment,” Dr. Pfeffer said during a press briefing following his talk at the sessions.

Preventing heart failures to come

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in acute MI patients within a few days of their event “is perhaps addressing prevention of the heart failure that’s to come,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, designated discussant for the report and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. “Patients who are destined to develop heart failure are beginning their treatment early. The subgroup analyses suggest that it’s the sicker patients who benefited the most,” she said.

But Dr. Pfeffer stressed that “I don’t think this is a subgroup discussion. I would like to pursue this, but that’s up to the sponsor,” Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan.

‘Exceedingly reassuring’ safety

The safety data that Dr. Pfeffer reported “are exceedingly reassuring. We didn’t see a signal of harm, and in some of the exploratory endpoints there was some evidence of benefit, so we need to encourage you to continue,” commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis.

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) trial enrolled 5,669 patients with no history of heart failure within an average of 4 days following an acute MI at 495 sites in 41 countries during 2016-2020, with 8% of enrolled patients from the United States. Patients averaged 64 years of age, about three-quarters were men, about 43% had a history of diabetes, and only 1% were Black; Dr. Pfeffer noted that this is because most patients came from countries with low Black populations. The enrollment criteria required a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 40%, and among the enrolled patients this averaged about 37%.

A 10% nonsignificant relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined first-event rate of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an outpatient visit for heart failure. During a median follow-up of 23 months, this occurred at a rate of 7.4/100 patient years in the ramipril arm and 6.7/100 patient years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, a 10% relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan that was not significant, which meant all other efficacy analyses were exploratory, Dr. Pfeffer stressed.

Several secondary efficacy analyses showed significant benefits from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, including the total number of events that comprised the primary endpoint, with a 21% relative risk reduction associated with sacubitril/valsartan, as well as investigator-reported events. The primary-endpoint benefit from sacubitril/valsartan was also significant in two subgroup analyses: patients aged 65 years or older (roughly half the study cohort), who had a 24% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, and the 88% of patients who received treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention for their acute MI, who had a 19% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients who received ramipril.

The study’s safety data showed nearly identical rates in the two treatment arms for total adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events that led to stopping the study drug, as well as in laboratory measures. The biggest between-treatment differences were a modest excess of hypotension on sacubitril valsartan, 28%, compared with 22% on ramipril, and a modest excess rate of cough on ramipril, 13%, compared with 9% on sacubitril/valsartan.

The added insight the results provide about sacubitril/valsartan comes at a time when U.S. patients continue to struggle to get health insurance coverage for an agent that has been approved for U.S. use in treating heart failure since 2015.

“Our patients do not have access to this important treatment,” declared Dr. Walsh during the press briefing. “The prior authorization process is unbelievable, and some patients have no access unless they pay the full cost on their own. This is an important, real-world problem that we face with this drug.”

PARADISE-MI was sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Pfeffer has received research funding from and is a consultant to Novartis. He is also a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and he holds equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. Dr. Stevenson has received honoraria from LivaNova and has received research support from Abbott. Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Race and socioeconomic status can hinder and delay patient access to migraine treatment and result in poorer outcomes, according to a study published in the April issue of Headache. People of African descent and Latinx ethnicity tend to fare worse than other people of color and their White counterparts.

“It should be shocking to neurologists and other clinicians who care for migraine patients how few are able to successfully traverse the barriers to achieve an accurate diagnosis and proper, evidence-based, acute and preventative treatment,” commented Peter McAllister, MD, medical director at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache and chief medical officer for clinical research at Ki Clinical Research in Stamford, Conn. Dr. McAllister was not involved in this study.
 

Assessing barriers to care

Researchers designed the study with the primary objective of estimating the number of patients with migraines with unmet clinical needs and who were impacted by four preidentified barriers to care. To evaluate their objective, researchers conducted a longitudinal, Internet-based survey known as the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study. They collected data over 1 year examining a cohort of patients that mimicked the diverse demographics of the U.S. population. Researchers conducted longitudinal assessments every 3 months for 15 months, incorporating cross-sectional analyses that surveyed health care use, family burden, and comorbidities or endophenotypes.

Eligible enrollees were 18 years of age or older.

Researchers identified four barriers that hindered patient outcomes, and they served as the primary outcomes of the studies. They were:

• Health care provider consultations. Investigators used study participants’ responses to the following question during their interactions with their health care providers to help evaluate the quality of their consultation experience: “What type of doctor is currently managing your headaches?” Researchers included data from patients whose practitioners fit the description of those they deemed best suited to address ongoing headache challenges. These medical professionals included general practitioners, family physicians, internal medicine doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, neurologists, pain specialists, headache specialists, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
• Diagnosis. Carefully evaluating patients’ responses to a series of questions helped researchers gauge the accuracy of diagnosis. Questions included: “Have you ever been diagnosed by a doctor or other health professional with any of the following types of headaches?” Respondents were also given a list of options that provided additional context around their headaches and were encouraged to select all appropriate responses. The list included a fictional response option of “citrene headache” to determine incorrect responses. For this study, researchers deemed it necessary to recognize a chronic migraine diagnosis to ensure that patients received appropriate treatment.
• Minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment. Researchers used the following question to determine whether patients’ chronic migraine and episodic migraine were being managed with the least amount of pharmacological treatment necessary. “Which of these medications (if any) are you currently using (or typically keep on hand) to treat your headaches when you have them?” Researchers defined “minimally appropriate acute pharmacologic treatment” as the use of any prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), triptan, ergotamine derivative, or isometheptene.
• Avoidance of medication overuse. The study authors pointed out the sometimes nebulous process of characterizing the appropriate use of preventative medication in patients with episodic migraines as “not straightforward” for some patients because not all patients require preventive treatment. Study participants were required to report having received any form of preventative therapy, defined as pharmacological therapies approved by guidelines and supported by data. Such therapies included various antiseizure medication, antidepressants (for example, doxepin, venlafaxine, duloxetine, amitriptyline, imipramine, nortriptyline, and desvenlafaxine), antihypertensives, and toxin injections. Treatments such as behavioral and neuromodulatory therapies were excluded from the list.

According to lead author Dawn C. Buse, PhD, of the department of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, acute medication overuse provides an important modifiable target for intervention and recommends that clinicians use the opportunity to optimize migraine care by reducing the patients’ reliance on acute therapies. Taking such initiatives to decrease medication overuse is especially important in communities of color, who are more likely to overuse medications for migraines.

Patients with higher income levels were more likely to overcome each barrier. People of African, African American, or multiracial descent were more prone to overuse of medications to manage their migraines.

Of the 489,537 respondents invited to participate in the CaMEO study, 16,879 qualified for inclusion. Slightly more than half of the respondents (n = 9,184 [54.7%]) had a migraine-related disability (MIDAS) score of 6 or greater – an indicator of disability that is least mild in nature. Most patients who had episodic migraines or chronic migraines (86.2%) had some form of health insurance coverage (n = 9.184; 84.1%; P = .048). Of those patients who were insured, 7,930 patients experienced episodic migraine (86.3%) and the remainder had chronic migraine (n = 1,254; 13.7%). Higher-income patients were more likely to traverse barriers to care. While patients of African descent had higher consultation rates, they also had higher rates of acute medication overuse.

Patients with chronic migraine were more likely to be older than patients with episodic migraine (41.0 vs. 39.6 years; P = .0001) and female (83.0% vs. 79.0%; P = .001), and White (84.5% vs. 79.1%; P < .001). Similarly, patients with chronic migraine were more likely to have a higher mean body mass index (29.8 kg/m² vs. 28.9 kg/m²; P < .001) and lower rates of full- or part-time employment (56.8% vs. 67.1%; P < .001), and were less likely to have a 4-year degree (64.8 vs. 55.6; P < .001) and annual household incomes below $75,000 (72.6% vs. 64.6%; P < .001). Approximately three-quarters of the patients with episodic migraine (75.7%; 1655/2187) and one-third of patients with chronic migraine (32.8%; 168/512) received accurate diagnoses.

The data uncovered an association with acute medication overuse. Among current consulters who had received an accurate diagnosis and minimally adequate treatment, medication overuse rates were highest among those reporting two or more races (53%) and Blacks and African Americans (45%) and lowest among Whites (33%) and those categorized as “other” race (32%). Ethnic and cultural differences in headache literacy may contribute to differences in medication overuse. 
 

Strategies to improve outcomes

Both Dr. Buse and Dr. McAllister see the value advocacy and education offer in helping to improve outcomes in marginalized communities and other groups negatively impacted by various barriers.

“Patient advocacy and outreach are key here, especially in those traditionally underrepresented in the migraine space, such as men, people of color, blue-collar workers, etc.,” Dr. McAllister noted.

Dr. Buse emphasized the importance of education for patients and health care professionals alike. “A large percentage of people who meet criteria for migraine in the U.S. do not seek care or possibly even know that they have migraines,” Dr. Buse said. “This finding underscores the importance of public health education about migraine as well as well as providing migraine support, education, and resources to health care professionals on the front lines.”

Other strategies recommended by Dr, Buse to ease the impact of barriers include encouraging patient discussion, setting up time for follow-up appointments and education, referring patients for neurological and other specialty consults when warranted, reviewing essential lifestyle habits for migraine management, and creating personalized, mutually agreed-upon treatment plans.

Dr. Buse has received support and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, and Promius.

Race and socioeconomic status can hinder and delay patient access to migraine treatment and result in poorer outcomes, according to a study published in the April issue of Headache. People of African descent and Latinx ethnicity tend to fare worse than other people of color and their White counterparts.

“It should be shocking to neurologists and other clinicians who care for migraine patients how few are able to successfully traverse the barriers to achieve an accurate diagnosis and proper, evidence-based, acute and preventative treatment,” commented Peter McAllister, MD, medical director at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache and chief medical officer for clinical research at Ki Clinical Research in Stamford, Conn. Dr. McAllister was not involved in this study.
 

Assessing barriers to care

Researchers designed the study with the primary objective of estimating the number of patients with migraines with unmet clinical needs and who were impacted by four preidentified barriers to care. To evaluate their objective, researchers conducted a longitudinal, Internet-based survey known as the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study. They collected data over 1 year examining a cohort of patients that mimicked the diverse demographics of the U.S. population. Researchers conducted longitudinal assessments every 3 months for 15 months, incorporating cross-sectional analyses that surveyed health care use, family burden, and comorbidities or endophenotypes.

Eligible enrollees were 18 years of age or older.

Researchers identified four barriers that hindered patient outcomes, and they served as the primary outcomes of the studies. They were:

• Health care provider consultations. Investigators used study participants’ responses to the following question during their interactions with their health care providers to help evaluate the quality of their consultation experience: “What type of doctor is currently managing your headaches?” Researchers included data from patients whose practitioners fit the description of those they deemed best suited to address ongoing headache challenges. These medical professionals included general practitioners, family physicians, internal medicine doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, neurologists, pain specialists, headache specialists, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
• Diagnosis. Carefully evaluating patients’ responses to a series of questions helped researchers gauge the accuracy of diagnosis. Questions included: “Have you ever been diagnosed by a doctor or other health professional with any of the following types of headaches?” Respondents were also given a list of options that provided additional context around their headaches and were encouraged to select all appropriate responses. The list included a fictional response option of “citrene headache” to determine incorrect responses. For this study, researchers deemed it necessary to recognize a chronic migraine diagnosis to ensure that patients received appropriate treatment.
• Minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment. Researchers used the following question to determine whether patients’ chronic migraine and episodic migraine were being managed with the least amount of pharmacological treatment necessary. “Which of these medications (if any) are you currently using (or typically keep on hand) to treat your headaches when you have them?” Researchers defined “minimally appropriate acute pharmacologic treatment” as the use of any prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), triptan, ergotamine derivative, or isometheptene.
• Avoidance of medication overuse. The study authors pointed out the sometimes nebulous process of characterizing the appropriate use of preventative medication in patients with episodic migraines as “not straightforward” for some patients because not all patients require preventive treatment. Study participants were required to report having received any form of preventative therapy, defined as pharmacological therapies approved by guidelines and supported by data. Such therapies included various antiseizure medication, antidepressants (for example, doxepin, venlafaxine, duloxetine, amitriptyline, imipramine, nortriptyline, and desvenlafaxine), antihypertensives, and toxin injections. Treatments such as behavioral and neuromodulatory therapies were excluded from the list.

According to lead author Dawn C. Buse, PhD, of the department of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, acute medication overuse provides an important modifiable target for intervention and recommends that clinicians use the opportunity to optimize migraine care by reducing the patients’ reliance on acute therapies. Taking such initiatives to decrease medication overuse is especially important in communities of color, who are more likely to overuse medications for migraines.

Patients with higher income levels were more likely to overcome each barrier. People of African, African American, or multiracial descent were more prone to overuse of medications to manage their migraines.

Of the 489,537 respondents invited to participate in the CaMEO study, 16,879 qualified for inclusion. Slightly more than half of the respondents (n = 9,184 [54.7%]) had a migraine-related disability (MIDAS) score of 6 or greater – an indicator of disability that is least mild in nature. Most patients who had episodic migraines or chronic migraines (86.2%) had some form of health insurance coverage (n = 9.184; 84.1%; P = .048). Of those patients who were insured, 7,930 patients experienced episodic migraine (86.3%) and the remainder had chronic migraine (n = 1,254; 13.7%). Higher-income patients were more likely to traverse barriers to care. While patients of African descent had higher consultation rates, they also had higher rates of acute medication overuse.

Patients with chronic migraine were more likely to be older than patients with episodic migraine (41.0 vs. 39.6 years; P = .0001) and female (83.0% vs. 79.0%; P = .001), and White (84.5% vs. 79.1%; P < .001). Similarly, patients with chronic migraine were more likely to have a higher mean body mass index (29.8 kg/m² vs. 28.9 kg/m²; P < .001) and lower rates of full- or part-time employment (56.8% vs. 67.1%; P < .001), and were less likely to have a 4-year degree (64.8 vs. 55.6; P < .001) and annual household incomes below $75,000 (72.6% vs. 64.6%; P < .001). Approximately three-quarters of the patients with episodic migraine (75.7%; 1655/2187) and one-third of patients with chronic migraine (32.8%; 168/512) received accurate diagnoses.

The data uncovered an association with acute medication overuse. Among current consulters who had received an accurate diagnosis and minimally adequate treatment, medication overuse rates were highest among those reporting two or more races (53%) and Blacks and African Americans (45%) and lowest among Whites (33%) and those categorized as “other” race (32%). Ethnic and cultural differences in headache literacy may contribute to differences in medication overuse. 
 

Strategies to improve outcomes

Both Dr. Buse and Dr. McAllister see the value advocacy and education offer in helping to improve outcomes in marginalized communities and other groups negatively impacted by various barriers.

“Patient advocacy and outreach are key here, especially in those traditionally underrepresented in the migraine space, such as men, people of color, blue-collar workers, etc.,” Dr. McAllister noted.

Dr. Buse emphasized the importance of education for patients and health care professionals alike. “A large percentage of people who meet criteria for migraine in the U.S. do not seek care or possibly even know that they have migraines,” Dr. Buse said. “This finding underscores the importance of public health education about migraine as well as well as providing migraine support, education, and resources to health care professionals on the front lines.”

Other strategies recommended by Dr, Buse to ease the impact of barriers include encouraging patient discussion, setting up time for follow-up appointments and education, referring patients for neurological and other specialty consults when warranted, reviewing essential lifestyle habits for migraine management, and creating personalized, mutually agreed-upon treatment plans.

Dr. Buse has received support and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, and Promius.

Race and socioeconomic status can hinder and delay patient access to migraine treatment and result in poorer outcomes, according to a study published in the April issue of Headache. People of African descent and Latinx ethnicity tend to fare worse than other people of color and their White counterparts.

“It should be shocking to neurologists and other clinicians who care for migraine patients how few are able to successfully traverse the barriers to achieve an accurate diagnosis and proper, evidence-based, acute and preventative treatment,” commented Peter McAllister, MD, medical director at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache and chief medical officer for clinical research at Ki Clinical Research in Stamford, Conn. Dr. McAllister was not involved in this study.
 

Assessing barriers to care

Researchers designed the study with the primary objective of estimating the number of patients with migraines with unmet clinical needs and who were impacted by four preidentified barriers to care. To evaluate their objective, researchers conducted a longitudinal, Internet-based survey known as the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study. They collected data over 1 year examining a cohort of patients that mimicked the diverse demographics of the U.S. population. Researchers conducted longitudinal assessments every 3 months for 15 months, incorporating cross-sectional analyses that surveyed health care use, family burden, and comorbidities or endophenotypes.

Eligible enrollees were 18 years of age or older.

Researchers identified four barriers that hindered patient outcomes, and they served as the primary outcomes of the studies. They were:

• Health care provider consultations. Investigators used study participants’ responses to the following question during their interactions with their health care providers to help evaluate the quality of their consultation experience: “What type of doctor is currently managing your headaches?” Researchers included data from patients whose practitioners fit the description of those they deemed best suited to address ongoing headache challenges. These medical professionals included general practitioners, family physicians, internal medicine doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, neurologists, pain specialists, headache specialists, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
• Diagnosis. Carefully evaluating patients’ responses to a series of questions helped researchers gauge the accuracy of diagnosis. Questions included: “Have you ever been diagnosed by a doctor or other health professional with any of the following types of headaches?” Respondents were also given a list of options that provided additional context around their headaches and were encouraged to select all appropriate responses. The list included a fictional response option of “citrene headache” to determine incorrect responses. For this study, researchers deemed it necessary to recognize a chronic migraine diagnosis to ensure that patients received appropriate treatment.
• Minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment. Researchers used the following question to determine whether patients’ chronic migraine and episodic migraine were being managed with the least amount of pharmacological treatment necessary. “Which of these medications (if any) are you currently using (or typically keep on hand) to treat your headaches when you have them?” Researchers defined “minimally appropriate acute pharmacologic treatment” as the use of any prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), triptan, ergotamine derivative, or isometheptene.
• Avoidance of medication overuse. The study authors pointed out the sometimes nebulous process of characterizing the appropriate use of preventative medication in patients with episodic migraines as “not straightforward” for some patients because not all patients require preventive treatment. Study participants were required to report having received any form of preventative therapy, defined as pharmacological therapies approved by guidelines and supported by data. Such therapies included various antiseizure medication, antidepressants (for example, doxepin, venlafaxine, duloxetine, amitriptyline, imipramine, nortriptyline, and desvenlafaxine), antihypertensives, and toxin injections. Treatments such as behavioral and neuromodulatory therapies were excluded from the list.

According to lead author Dawn C. Buse, PhD, of the department of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, acute medication overuse provides an important modifiable target for intervention and recommends that clinicians use the opportunity to optimize migraine care by reducing the patients’ reliance on acute therapies. Taking such initiatives to decrease medication overuse is especially important in communities of color, who are more likely to overuse medications for migraines.

Patients with higher income levels were more likely to overcome each barrier. People of African, African American, or multiracial descent were more prone to overuse of medications to manage their migraines.

Of the 489,537 respondents invited to participate in the CaMEO study, 16,879 qualified for inclusion. Slightly more than half of the respondents (n = 9,184 [54.7%]) had a migraine-related disability (MIDAS) score of 6 or greater – an indicator of disability that is least mild in nature. Most patients who had episodic migraines or chronic migraines (86.2%) had some form of health insurance coverage (n = 9.184; 84.1%; P = .048). Of those patients who were insured, 7,930 patients experienced episodic migraine (86.3%) and the remainder had chronic migraine (n = 1,254; 13.7%). Higher-income patients were more likely to traverse barriers to care. While patients of African descent had higher consultation rates, they also had higher rates of acute medication overuse.

Patients with chronic migraine were more likely to be older than patients with episodic migraine (41.0 vs. 39.6 years; P = .0001) and female (83.0% vs. 79.0%; P = .001), and White (84.5% vs. 79.1%; P < .001). Similarly, patients with chronic migraine were more likely to have a higher mean body mass index (29.8 kg/m² vs. 28.9 kg/m²; P < .001) and lower rates of full- or part-time employment (56.8% vs. 67.1%; P < .001), and were less likely to have a 4-year degree (64.8 vs. 55.6; P < .001) and annual household incomes below $75,000 (72.6% vs. 64.6%; P < .001). Approximately three-quarters of the patients with episodic migraine (75.7%; 1655/2187) and one-third of patients with chronic migraine (32.8%; 168/512) received accurate diagnoses.

The data uncovered an association with acute medication overuse. Among current consulters who had received an accurate diagnosis and minimally adequate treatment, medication overuse rates were highest among those reporting two or more races (53%) and Blacks and African Americans (45%) and lowest among Whites (33%) and those categorized as “other” race (32%). Ethnic and cultural differences in headache literacy may contribute to differences in medication overuse. 
 

Strategies to improve outcomes

Both Dr. Buse and Dr. McAllister see the value advocacy and education offer in helping to improve outcomes in marginalized communities and other groups negatively impacted by various barriers.

“Patient advocacy and outreach are key here, especially in those traditionally underrepresented in the migraine space, such as men, people of color, blue-collar workers, etc.,” Dr. McAllister noted.

Dr. Buse emphasized the importance of education for patients and health care professionals alike. “A large percentage of people who meet criteria for migraine in the U.S. do not seek care or possibly even know that they have migraines,” Dr. Buse said. “This finding underscores the importance of public health education about migraine as well as well as providing migraine support, education, and resources to health care professionals on the front lines.”

Other strategies recommended by Dr, Buse to ease the impact of barriers include encouraging patient discussion, setting up time for follow-up appointments and education, referring patients for neurological and other specialty consults when warranted, reviewing essential lifestyle habits for migraine management, and creating personalized, mutually agreed-upon treatment plans.

Dr. Buse has received support and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Avanir, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, and Promius.

Fifty-five chemicals never before reported in humans were found in pregnant women, according to a study from the University of California, San Francisco. The chemicals likely come from consumer products or industrial sources, researchers say.

Findings were published online in Environmental Science and Technology.

Co-first authors Aolin Wang, PhD, and Dimitri Panagopoulos Abrahamsson, PhD, postdoctoral fellows in UCSF’s obstetrics and gynecology department, and colleagues found 109 chemicals in the blood of pregnant women, including 42 “mystery chemicals” whose sources and uses are not known.

The chemicals were also found in their newborns, tests from umbilical cord blood show, suggesting the chemicals cross through the placenta.

Among the chemicals, 40 are used as plasticizers, 28 are used in cosmetics, another 25 are used in consumer products, 29 as pharmaceuticals, 23 as pesticides, three as flame retardants, and seven are PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] compounds used in multiple applications including carpeting and upholstery, the authors report.

Senior author Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, characterized their discoveries as “disturbing.”

She told this news organization that it’s not only frustrating to know the chemicals are present but to know so little about them.

“We know it’s a chemical registered to be manufactured, and it’s used in commerce, but we don’t know where,” she explained. “That’s very disturbing, that we can’t trace them, and that shows a failure in public policy and government.”

“Exposures are occurring without our consent,” said Ms. Woodruff, a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientist, who directs the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment (PRHE) and the Environmental Research and Translation for Health (EaRTH) Center, both at UCSF.  

She said researchers know from previous studies that when the U.S. government acts to remove harmful chemicals from the marketplace, the levels of those chemicals measured in people drop.

“Examples include lead, certain PFAS, flame retardant chemicals, and certain phthalates,” she said. “So public policies can be effective in preventing exposures that can be harmful.”
 

Technological advances led to the discoveries

The team used high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) to identify human-made chemicals in people.  

Dr. Abrahamsson said in an interview that the technology is relatively new in research and had not previously been used to scan for chemicals in pregnant women and their infants.

Because scientists often study what other scientists have studied, he said, the same chemicals tend to get attention. The wider scope made possible by the new technology helps illumine where to focus future research, he said.

A benefit of the technology is that now researchers don’t have to know which chemicals they are looking for when they scan blood samples, but they can observe whatever appears, he said.

Ms. Woodruff said, “We hope this is further data and evidence that support government policies that require industries to tell us where they are using their chemicals and how we might be exposed to them.”

She said this research will also help identify which chemicals to prioritize for monitoring in the environment.

Average age of the women in the study was 32 years. Nearly half were Hispanic; 37% were non-Hispanic Whites; and 17% were non-Hispanic Asians, Pacific Islanders, and African Americans. Half of the participants were born outside the United States and had lived in the U.S. for an average 22 years.

Sean Palfrey, MD, a professor of clinical pediatrics and public health at Boston University, said more chemical discoveries like these will come as technology continues to evolve.

Dr. Palfrey, who was not involved in the study, agrees with the authors that there is a lack of oversight as to what substances are used in products.

“Our industrial regulations are very poor and therefore our industries get away with using new and untested substances in their products,” he told this news organization.

“This lack of regulation is really important when it results in us not recognizing that known and serious toxins are being put into foods or other products, or when a new class of toxin has been invented which is a serious poison. Most of the toxins, though, are discovered in products in very low levels,” he said.

Dr. Palfrey said, however, that focus should stay on the known and serious toxins that seep into the environment from common products.

“It has taken us decades to ban certain flame retardants from home products,” he said. “TOSCA [the Toxic Substances Control Act passed by Congress in 1976] was too limited when it was passed decades ago and is now fearfully out of date. Unless we discover a COVID among the toxins discovered in studies like this, we should focus on the big stuff.”

The authors and Dr. Palfrey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fifty-five chemicals never before reported in humans were found in pregnant women, according to a study from the University of California, San Francisco. The chemicals likely come from consumer products or industrial sources, researchers say.

Findings were published online in Environmental Science and Technology.

Co-first authors Aolin Wang, PhD, and Dimitri Panagopoulos Abrahamsson, PhD, postdoctoral fellows in UCSF’s obstetrics and gynecology department, and colleagues found 109 chemicals in the blood of pregnant women, including 42 “mystery chemicals” whose sources and uses are not known.

The chemicals were also found in their newborns, tests from umbilical cord blood show, suggesting the chemicals cross through the placenta.

Among the chemicals, 40 are used as plasticizers, 28 are used in cosmetics, another 25 are used in consumer products, 29 as pharmaceuticals, 23 as pesticides, three as flame retardants, and seven are PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] compounds used in multiple applications including carpeting and upholstery, the authors report.

Senior author Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, characterized their discoveries as “disturbing.”

She told this news organization that it’s not only frustrating to know the chemicals are present but to know so little about them.

“We know it’s a chemical registered to be manufactured, and it’s used in commerce, but we don’t know where,” she explained. “That’s very disturbing, that we can’t trace them, and that shows a failure in public policy and government.”

“Exposures are occurring without our consent,” said Ms. Woodruff, a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientist, who directs the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment (PRHE) and the Environmental Research and Translation for Health (EaRTH) Center, both at UCSF.  

She said researchers know from previous studies that when the U.S. government acts to remove harmful chemicals from the marketplace, the levels of those chemicals measured in people drop.

“Examples include lead, certain PFAS, flame retardant chemicals, and certain phthalates,” she said. “So public policies can be effective in preventing exposures that can be harmful.”
 

Technological advances led to the discoveries

The team used high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) to identify human-made chemicals in people.  

Dr. Abrahamsson said in an interview that the technology is relatively new in research and had not previously been used to scan for chemicals in pregnant women and their infants.

Because scientists often study what other scientists have studied, he said, the same chemicals tend to get attention. The wider scope made possible by the new technology helps illumine where to focus future research, he said.

A benefit of the technology is that now researchers don’t have to know which chemicals they are looking for when they scan blood samples, but they can observe whatever appears, he said.

Ms. Woodruff said, “We hope this is further data and evidence that support government policies that require industries to tell us where they are using their chemicals and how we might be exposed to them.”

She said this research will also help identify which chemicals to prioritize for monitoring in the environment.

Average age of the women in the study was 32 years. Nearly half were Hispanic; 37% were non-Hispanic Whites; and 17% were non-Hispanic Asians, Pacific Islanders, and African Americans. Half of the participants were born outside the United States and had lived in the U.S. for an average 22 years.

Sean Palfrey, MD, a professor of clinical pediatrics and public health at Boston University, said more chemical discoveries like these will come as technology continues to evolve.

Dr. Palfrey, who was not involved in the study, agrees with the authors that there is a lack of oversight as to what substances are used in products.

“Our industrial regulations are very poor and therefore our industries get away with using new and untested substances in their products,” he told this news organization.

“This lack of regulation is really important when it results in us not recognizing that known and serious toxins are being put into foods or other products, or when a new class of toxin has been invented which is a serious poison. Most of the toxins, though, are discovered in products in very low levels,” he said.

Dr. Palfrey said, however, that focus should stay on the known and serious toxins that seep into the environment from common products.

“It has taken us decades to ban certain flame retardants from home products,” he said. “TOSCA [the Toxic Substances Control Act passed by Congress in 1976] was too limited when it was passed decades ago and is now fearfully out of date. Unless we discover a COVID among the toxins discovered in studies like this, we should focus on the big stuff.”

The authors and Dr. Palfrey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fifty-five chemicals never before reported in humans were found in pregnant women, according to a study from the University of California, San Francisco. The chemicals likely come from consumer products or industrial sources, researchers say.

Findings were published online in Environmental Science and Technology.

Co-first authors Aolin Wang, PhD, and Dimitri Panagopoulos Abrahamsson, PhD, postdoctoral fellows in UCSF’s obstetrics and gynecology department, and colleagues found 109 chemicals in the blood of pregnant women, including 42 “mystery chemicals” whose sources and uses are not known.

The chemicals were also found in their newborns, tests from umbilical cord blood show, suggesting the chemicals cross through the placenta.

Among the chemicals, 40 are used as plasticizers, 28 are used in cosmetics, another 25 are used in consumer products, 29 as pharmaceuticals, 23 as pesticides, three as flame retardants, and seven are PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] compounds used in multiple applications including carpeting and upholstery, the authors report.

Senior author Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, characterized their discoveries as “disturbing.”

She told this news organization that it’s not only frustrating to know the chemicals are present but to know so little about them.

“We know it’s a chemical registered to be manufactured, and it’s used in commerce, but we don’t know where,” she explained. “That’s very disturbing, that we can’t trace them, and that shows a failure in public policy and government.”

“Exposures are occurring without our consent,” said Ms. Woodruff, a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientist, who directs the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment (PRHE) and the Environmental Research and Translation for Health (EaRTH) Center, both at UCSF.  

She said researchers know from previous studies that when the U.S. government acts to remove harmful chemicals from the marketplace, the levels of those chemicals measured in people drop.

“Examples include lead, certain PFAS, flame retardant chemicals, and certain phthalates,” she said. “So public policies can be effective in preventing exposures that can be harmful.”
 

Technological advances led to the discoveries

The team used high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) to identify human-made chemicals in people.  

Dr. Abrahamsson said in an interview that the technology is relatively new in research and had not previously been used to scan for chemicals in pregnant women and their infants.

Because scientists often study what other scientists have studied, he said, the same chemicals tend to get attention. The wider scope made possible by the new technology helps illumine where to focus future research, he said.

A benefit of the technology is that now researchers don’t have to know which chemicals they are looking for when they scan blood samples, but they can observe whatever appears, he said.

Ms. Woodruff said, “We hope this is further data and evidence that support government policies that require industries to tell us where they are using their chemicals and how we might be exposed to them.”

She said this research will also help identify which chemicals to prioritize for monitoring in the environment.

Average age of the women in the study was 32 years. Nearly half were Hispanic; 37% were non-Hispanic Whites; and 17% were non-Hispanic Asians, Pacific Islanders, and African Americans. Half of the participants were born outside the United States and had lived in the U.S. for an average 22 years.

Sean Palfrey, MD, a professor of clinical pediatrics and public health at Boston University, said more chemical discoveries like these will come as technology continues to evolve.

Dr. Palfrey, who was not involved in the study, agrees with the authors that there is a lack of oversight as to what substances are used in products.

“Our industrial regulations are very poor and therefore our industries get away with using new and untested substances in their products,” he told this news organization.

“This lack of regulation is really important when it results in us not recognizing that known and serious toxins are being put into foods or other products, or when a new class of toxin has been invented which is a serious poison. Most of the toxins, though, are discovered in products in very low levels,” he said.

Dr. Palfrey said, however, that focus should stay on the known and serious toxins that seep into the environment from common products.

“It has taken us decades to ban certain flame retardants from home products,” he said. “TOSCA [the Toxic Substances Control Act passed by Congress in 1976] was too limited when it was passed decades ago and is now fearfully out of date. Unless we discover a COVID among the toxins discovered in studies like this, we should focus on the big stuff.”

The authors and Dr. Palfrey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Diagnosis: Trichodysplasia Spinulosa 

Trichodysplasia spinulosa has been described in case reports over the last several decades, with its causative virus trichodysplasia spinulosa-associated polyomavirus (TSPyV) identified in 2010 by van der Meijden et al.¹ Trichodysplasia spinulosa-associated polyomavirus is a small, nonenveloped, double-stranded DNA virus in the Polyomaviridae family, among several other known cutaneous polyomaviruses including Merkel cell polyomavirus, human polyomavirus (HPyV) 6, HPyV7, HPyV10, and possibly HPyV13.² The primary target of TSPyV is follicular keratinocytes, and it is believed to cause trichodysplasia spinulosa by primary infection rather than by reactivation. Trichodysplasia spinulosa presents in immunosuppressed patients as a folliculocentric eruption of papules with keratinous spines on the face, often with concurrent alopecia, eventually spreading to the trunk and extremities.³ The diagnosis often is clinical, but a biopsy may be performed for histopathologic confirmation. Alternatively, lesional spicules can be painlessly collected manually and submitted for viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR).⁴ The diagnosis of trichodysplasia spinulosa can be difficult due to similarities with other more common conditions such as keratosis pilaris, milia, filiform warts, or lichen spinulosus.  

Similar to trichodysplasia spinulosa, keratosis pilaris also presents with folliculocentric and often erythematous papules.⁵ Keratosis pilaris most frequently affects the posterior upper arms and thighs but also may affect the cheeks, as seen in trichodysplasia spinulosa. Differentiation between the 2 diagnoses can be made on a clinical basis, as keratosis pilaris lacks the characteristic keratinous spines and often spares the central face and nose, locations that commonly are affected in trichodysplasia spinulosa.³ 

Milia typically appear as white to yellow papules, often on the cheeks, eyelids, nose, and chin.⁶ Given their predilection for the face, milia can appear similarly to trichodysplasia spinulosa. Differentiation can be made clinically, as milia typically are not as numerous as the spiculed papules seen in trichodysplasia spinulosa. Morphologically, milia will present as smooth, dome-shaped papules as opposed to the keratinous spicules seen in trichodysplasia spinulosa. The diagnosis of milia can be confirmed by incision and removal of the white chalky keratin core, a feature absent in trichodysplasia spinulosa.  

Filiform warts are benign epidermal proliferations caused by human papillomavirus infection that manifest as flesh-colored, verrucous, hyperkeratotic papules.⁷ They can appear on virtually any skin surface, including the face, and thus may be mistaken for trichodysplasia spinulosa. Close inspection usually will reveal tiny black dots that represent thrombosed capillaries, a feature lacking in trichodysplasia spinulosa. In long-standing lesions or immunocompromised patients, confluent verrucous plaques may develop.⁸ Diagnosis of filiform warts can be confirmed with biopsy, which will demonstrate a compact stratum corneum, coarse hypergranulosis, and papillomatosis curving inward, while biopsy of a trichodysplasia spinulosa lesion would show polyomavirus infection of the hair follicle and characteristic eosinophilic inclusion bodies.⁹ 

Lichen spinulosus may appear as multiple folliculocentric scaly papules with hairlike horny spines.¹⁰ Lichen spinulosus differs from trichodysplasia spinulosa in that it commonly appears on the neck, abdomen, trochanteric region, arms, elbows, or knees. Lichen spinulosus also classically appears as a concrete cluster of papules, often localized to a certain region, in contrast to trichodysplasia spinulosa, which will be widespread, often spreading over time. Finally, clinical history may help differentiate the 2 entities. Lichen spinulosus most often appears in children and adolescents and often has an indolent course, typically resolving during puberty, while trichodysplasia spinulosa is seen in immunocompromised patients. 

In our patient, the dermatology team made a diagnosis of trichodysplasia spinulosa based on the characteristic clinical presentation, which was confirmed after approximately 10 lesional spicules were removed by tissue forceps and submitted for PCR analysis showing TSPyV (Figure). Two other cases utilized spicule PCR analysis for confirmation of TSPyV.^11,12 This technique may represent a viable option for diagnostic confirmation in pediatric cases. 

Although some articles have examined the molecular and biologic features of trichodysplasia spinulosa, literature on clinical presentation and management is limited to isolated case reports with no comprehensive studies to establish a standardized treatment. Of these reports, oral valganciclovir 900 mg daily, topical retinoids, cidofovir cream 1% to 3%, and decreasing or altering the immunosuppressive regimen all have been noted to provide clinical improvement.^13,14 Other therapies including leflunomide and routine manual extraction of spicules also have shown effectiveness in the treatment of trichodysplasia spinulosa.¹⁵  

In our patient, treatment included decreasing immunosuppression, as she was getting recurrent sinus and upper respiratory infections. Mycophenolate mofetil was discontinued, and the patient was continued solely on tacrolimus therapy. She demonstrated notable improvement after 3 months, with approximately 50% clearance of the eruption. A mutual decision was made at that visit to initiate therapy with compounded cidofovir cream 1% daily to the lesions until the next follow-up visit. Unfortunately, the patient did not return for her scheduled dermatology visits and was lost to long-term follow-up. 

Acknowledgment
We thank Richard C. Wang, MD, PhD (Dallas, Texas), for his dermatologic expertise and assistance in analysis of lesional samples for TSPyV. 

The Diagnosis: Trichodysplasia Spinulosa 

Trichodysplasia spinulosa has been described in case reports over the last several decades, with its causative virus trichodysplasia spinulosa-associated polyomavirus (TSPyV) identified in 2010 by van der Meijden et al.¹ Trichodysplasia spinulosa-associated polyomavirus is a small, nonenveloped, double-stranded DNA virus in the Polyomaviridae family, among several other known cutaneous polyomaviruses including Merkel cell polyomavirus, human polyomavirus (HPyV) 6, HPyV7, HPyV10, and possibly HPyV13.² The primary target of TSPyV is follicular keratinocytes, and it is believed to cause trichodysplasia spinulosa by primary infection rather than by reactivation. Trichodysplasia spinulosa presents in immunosuppressed patients as a folliculocentric eruption of papules with keratinous spines on the face, often with concurrent alopecia, eventually spreading to the trunk and extremities.³ The diagnosis often is clinical, but a biopsy may be performed for histopathologic confirmation. Alternatively, lesional spicules can be painlessly collected manually and submitted for viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR).⁴ The diagnosis of trichodysplasia spinulosa can be difficult due to similarities with other more common conditions such as keratosis pilaris, milia, filiform warts, or lichen spinulosus.  

Similar to trichodysplasia spinulosa, keratosis pilaris also presents with folliculocentric and often erythematous papules.⁵ Keratosis pilaris most frequently affects the posterior upper arms and thighs but also may affect the cheeks, as seen in trichodysplasia spinulosa. Differentiation between the 2 diagnoses can be made on a clinical basis, as keratosis pilaris lacks the characteristic keratinous spines and often spares the central face and nose, locations that commonly are affected in trichodysplasia spinulosa.³ 

Milia typically appear as white to yellow papules, often on the cheeks, eyelids, nose, and chin.⁶ Given their predilection for the face, milia can appear similarly to trichodysplasia spinulosa. Differentiation can be made clinically, as milia typically are not as numerous as the spiculed papules seen in trichodysplasia spinulosa. Morphologically, milia will present as smooth, dome-shaped papules as opposed to the keratinous spicules seen in trichodysplasia spinulosa. The diagnosis of milia can be confirmed by incision and removal of the white chalky keratin core, a feature absent in trichodysplasia spinulosa.  

Filiform warts are benign epidermal proliferations caused by human papillomavirus infection that manifest as flesh-colored, verrucous, hyperkeratotic papules.⁷ They can appear on virtually any skin surface, including the face, and thus may be mistaken for trichodysplasia spinulosa. Close inspection usually will reveal tiny black dots that represent thrombosed capillaries, a feature lacking in trichodysplasia spinulosa. In long-standing lesions or immunocompromised patients, confluent verrucous plaques may develop.⁸ Diagnosis of filiform warts can be confirmed with biopsy, which will demonstrate a compact stratum corneum, coarse hypergranulosis, and papillomatosis curving inward, while biopsy of a trichodysplasia spinulosa lesion would show polyomavirus infection of the hair follicle and characteristic eosinophilic inclusion bodies.⁹ 

Lichen spinulosus may appear as multiple folliculocentric scaly papules with hairlike horny spines.¹⁰ Lichen spinulosus differs from trichodysplasia spinulosa in that it commonly appears on the neck, abdomen, trochanteric region, arms, elbows, or knees. Lichen spinulosus also classically appears as a concrete cluster of papules, often localized to a certain region, in contrast to trichodysplasia spinulosa, which will be widespread, often spreading over time. Finally, clinical history may help differentiate the 2 entities. Lichen spinulosus most often appears in children and adolescents and often has an indolent course, typically resolving during puberty, while trichodysplasia spinulosa is seen in immunocompromised patients. 

In our patient, the dermatology team made a diagnosis of trichodysplasia spinulosa based on the characteristic clinical presentation, which was confirmed after approximately 10 lesional spicules were removed by tissue forceps and submitted for PCR analysis showing TSPyV (Figure). Two other cases utilized spicule PCR analysis for confirmation of TSPyV.^11,12 This technique may represent a viable option for diagnostic confirmation in pediatric cases. 

Although some articles have examined the molecular and biologic features of trichodysplasia spinulosa, literature on clinical presentation and management is limited to isolated case reports with no comprehensive studies to establish a standardized treatment. Of these reports, oral valganciclovir 900 mg daily, topical retinoids, cidofovir cream 1% to 3%, and decreasing or altering the immunosuppressive regimen all have been noted to provide clinical improvement.^13,14 Other therapies including leflunomide and routine manual extraction of spicules also have shown effectiveness in the treatment of trichodysplasia spinulosa.¹⁵  

In our patient, treatment included decreasing immunosuppression, as she was getting recurrent sinus and upper respiratory infections. Mycophenolate mofetil was discontinued, and the patient was continued solely on tacrolimus therapy. She demonstrated notable improvement after 3 months, with approximately 50% clearance of the eruption. A mutual decision was made at that visit to initiate therapy with compounded cidofovir cream 1% daily to the lesions until the next follow-up visit. Unfortunately, the patient did not return for her scheduled dermatology visits and was lost to long-term follow-up. 

Acknowledgment
We thank Richard C. Wang, MD, PhD (Dallas, Texas), for his dermatologic expertise and assistance in analysis of lesional samples for TSPyV. 

The Diagnosis: Trichodysplasia Spinulosa 

Trichodysplasia spinulosa has been described in case reports over the last several decades, with its causative virus trichodysplasia spinulosa-associated polyomavirus (TSPyV) identified in 2010 by van der Meijden et al.¹ Trichodysplasia spinulosa-associated polyomavirus is a small, nonenveloped, double-stranded DNA virus in the Polyomaviridae family, among several other known cutaneous polyomaviruses including Merkel cell polyomavirus, human polyomavirus (HPyV) 6, HPyV7, HPyV10, and possibly HPyV13.² The primary target of TSPyV is follicular keratinocytes, and it is believed to cause trichodysplasia spinulosa by primary infection rather than by reactivation. Trichodysplasia spinulosa presents in immunosuppressed patients as a folliculocentric eruption of papules with keratinous spines on the face, often with concurrent alopecia, eventually spreading to the trunk and extremities.³ The diagnosis often is clinical, but a biopsy may be performed for histopathologic confirmation. Alternatively, lesional spicules can be painlessly collected manually and submitted for viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR).⁴ The diagnosis of trichodysplasia spinulosa can be difficult due to similarities with other more common conditions such as keratosis pilaris, milia, filiform warts, or lichen spinulosus.  

Similar to trichodysplasia spinulosa, keratosis pilaris also presents with folliculocentric and often erythematous papules.⁵ Keratosis pilaris most frequently affects the posterior upper arms and thighs but also may affect the cheeks, as seen in trichodysplasia spinulosa. Differentiation between the 2 diagnoses can be made on a clinical basis, as keratosis pilaris lacks the characteristic keratinous spines and often spares the central face and nose, locations that commonly are affected in trichodysplasia spinulosa.³ 

Milia typically appear as white to yellow papules, often on the cheeks, eyelids, nose, and chin.⁶ Given their predilection for the face, milia can appear similarly to trichodysplasia spinulosa. Differentiation can be made clinically, as milia typically are not as numerous as the spiculed papules seen in trichodysplasia spinulosa. Morphologically, milia will present as smooth, dome-shaped papules as opposed to the keratinous spicules seen in trichodysplasia spinulosa. The diagnosis of milia can be confirmed by incision and removal of the white chalky keratin core, a feature absent in trichodysplasia spinulosa.  

Filiform warts are benign epidermal proliferations caused by human papillomavirus infection that manifest as flesh-colored, verrucous, hyperkeratotic papules.⁷ They can appear on virtually any skin surface, including the face, and thus may be mistaken for trichodysplasia spinulosa. Close inspection usually will reveal tiny black dots that represent thrombosed capillaries, a feature lacking in trichodysplasia spinulosa. In long-standing lesions or immunocompromised patients, confluent verrucous plaques may develop.⁸ Diagnosis of filiform warts can be confirmed with biopsy, which will demonstrate a compact stratum corneum, coarse hypergranulosis, and papillomatosis curving inward, while biopsy of a trichodysplasia spinulosa lesion would show polyomavirus infection of the hair follicle and characteristic eosinophilic inclusion bodies.⁹ 

Lichen spinulosus may appear as multiple folliculocentric scaly papules with hairlike horny spines.¹⁰ Lichen spinulosus differs from trichodysplasia spinulosa in that it commonly appears on the neck, abdomen, trochanteric region, arms, elbows, or knees. Lichen spinulosus also classically appears as a concrete cluster of papules, often localized to a certain region, in contrast to trichodysplasia spinulosa, which will be widespread, often spreading over time. Finally, clinical history may help differentiate the 2 entities. Lichen spinulosus most often appears in children and adolescents and often has an indolent course, typically resolving during puberty, while trichodysplasia spinulosa is seen in immunocompromised patients. 

In our patient, the dermatology team made a diagnosis of trichodysplasia spinulosa based on the characteristic clinical presentation, which was confirmed after approximately 10 lesional spicules were removed by tissue forceps and submitted for PCR analysis showing TSPyV (Figure). Two other cases utilized spicule PCR analysis for confirmation of TSPyV.^11,12 This technique may represent a viable option for diagnostic confirmation in pediatric cases. 

Although some articles have examined the molecular and biologic features of trichodysplasia spinulosa, literature on clinical presentation and management is limited to isolated case reports with no comprehensive studies to establish a standardized treatment. Of these reports, oral valganciclovir 900 mg daily, topical retinoids, cidofovir cream 1% to 3%, and decreasing or altering the immunosuppressive regimen all have been noted to provide clinical improvement.^13,14 Other therapies including leflunomide and routine manual extraction of spicules also have shown effectiveness in the treatment of trichodysplasia spinulosa.¹⁵  

In our patient, treatment included decreasing immunosuppression, as she was getting recurrent sinus and upper respiratory infections. Mycophenolate mofetil was discontinued, and the patient was continued solely on tacrolimus therapy. She demonstrated notable improvement after 3 months, with approximately 50% clearance of the eruption. A mutual decision was made at that visit to initiate therapy with compounded cidofovir cream 1% daily to the lesions until the next follow-up visit. Unfortunately, the patient did not return for her scheduled dermatology visits and was lost to long-term follow-up. 

Acknowledgment
We thank Richard C. Wang, MD, PhD (Dallas, Texas), for his dermatologic expertise and assistance in analysis of lesional samples for TSPyV. 

We have no way of precisely knowing how many lives might have been saved, and how much grief and loneliness spared and economic ruin contained during COVID-19 if we had risen to its myriad challenges in a timely fashion. However, I feel we can safely say that the United States deserves to be graded with an “F” for its management of the pandemic.

To render this grade, we need only to read the countless verified reports of how critically needed public health measures were not taken soon enough, or sufficiently, to substantially mitigate human and societal suffering.

This began with the failure to protect doctors, nurses, and technicians, who did not have the personal protective equipment needed to prevent infection and spare risk to their loved ones. It soon extended to the country’s failure to adequately protect all its citizens and residents. COVID-19 then rained its grievous consequences disproportionately upon people of color, those living in poverty, and those with housing and food insecurity – those already greatly foreclosed from opportunities to exit from their circumstances.

We all have heard, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

Bear witness, colleagues and friends: It will be our shared shame if we too continue to fail in our response to COVID-19. But failure need not happen because protecting ourselves and our country is a solvable problem; complex and demanding for sure, but solvable.
 

To battle trauma, we must first define it

The sine qua non of a disaster is its psychic and social trauma. I asked Maureen Sayres Van Niel, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Minority and Underrepresented Caucus and a former steering committee member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, to define trauma. She said, “It is [the product of] a catastrophic, unexpected event over which we have little control, with grave consequences to the lives and psychological functioning of those individuals and groups affected.”

The COVID-19 pandemic is a massively amplified traumatic event because of the virulence and contagious properties of the virus and its variants; the absence of end date on the horizon; its effect as a proverbial ax that disproportionately falls on the majority of the populace experiencing racial and social inequities; and the ironic yet necessary imperative to distance ourselves from those we care about and who care about us.

Four interdependent factors drive the magnitude of the traumatic impact of a disaster: the degree of exposure to the life-threatening event; the duration and threat of recurrence; an individual’s preexisting (natural and human-made) trauma and mental and addictive disorders; and the adequacy of family and fundamental resources such as housing, food, safety, and access to health care (the social dimensions of health and mental health). These factors underline the “who,” “what,” “where,” and “how” of what should have been (and continue to be) an effective public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yet existing categories that we have used to predict risk for trauma no longer hold. The gravity, prevalence, and persistence of COVID-19’s horrors erase any differences among victims, witnesses, and bystanders. Dr Sayres Van Niel asserts that we have a “collective, national trauma.” In April, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Vaccine Monitor reported that 24% of U.S. adults had a close friend or family member who died of COVID-19. That’s 82 million Americans! Our country has eclipsed individual victimization and trauma because we are all in its maw.
 

Vital lessons from the past

In a previous column, I described my role as New York City’s mental health commissioner after 9/11 and the many lessons we learned during that multiyear process. Our work served as a template for other disasters to follow, such as Hurricane Sandy. Its value to COVID-19 is equally apparent.

We learned that those most at risk of developing symptomatic, functionally impairing mental illness had prior traumatic experiences (for example, from childhood abuse or neglect, violence, war, and forced displacement from their native land) and/or a preexisting mental or substance use disorder.

Once these individuals and communities were identified, we could prioritize their treatment and care. Doing so required mobilizing both inner and external (social) resources, which can be used before disaster strikes or in its wake.

For individuals, adaptive resources include developing any of a number of mind-body activities (for example, meditation, mindfulness, slow breathing, and yoga); sufficient but not necessarily excessive levels of exercise (as has been said, if exercise were a pill, it would be the most potent of medicines); nourishing diets; sleep, nature’s restorative state; and perhaps most important, attachment and human connection to people who care about you and whom you care about and trust.

One unexpected, yet now consistent, predictor of resilience in the wake of disaster is faith. This does not necessarily mean holding or following an institutional religion or belonging to house of worship (though, of course, that melds and augments faith with community). For a great many, myself included, there is spirituality, the belief in a greater power, which need not be a God yet instills a sense of the vastness, universality, and continuity of life.

For communities, adaptive resources include safe homes and neighborhoods; diminishing housing and food insecurity; education, including pre-K; employment, with a livable wage; ridding human interactions of the endless, so-called microaggressions (which are not micro at all, because they accrue) of race, ethnic, class, and age discrimination and injustice; and ready access to quality and affordable health care, now more than ever for the rising tide of mental and substance use disorders that COVID-19 has unleashed.

Every gain we make to ablate racism, social injustice, discrimination, and widely and deeply spread resource and opportunity inequities means more cohesion among the members of our collective tribe. Greater cohesion, a love for thy neighbor, and equity (in action, not polemics) will fuel the resilience we will need to withstand more of COVID-19’s ongoing trauma; that of other, inescapable disasters and losses; and the wear and tear of everyday life. The rewards of equity are priceless and include the dignity that derives from fairness and justice – given and received.
 

An unprecedented disaster requires a bold response

My, what a list. But to me, the encompassing nature of what’s needed means that we can make differences anywhere, everywhere, and in countless and continuous ways.

The measure of any society is in how it cares for those who are foreclosed, through no fault of their own, from what we all want: a life safe from violence, secure in housing and food, with loving relationships and the pride that comes of making contributions, each in our own, wonderfully unique way.

Where will we all be in a year, 2, or 3 from now? Prepared, or not? Emotionally inoculated, or not? Better equipped, or not? As divided, or more cohesive?

Well, I imagine that depends on each and every one of us.

Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, is a psychiatrist, public health doctor, and writer. He is an adjunct professor at the Columbia University School of Public Health, director of Columbia Psychiatry Media, chief medical officer of Bongo Media, and chair of the advisory board of Get Help. He has been chief medical officer of McLean Hospital, a Harvard teaching hospital; mental health commissioner of New York City (in the Bloomberg administration); and chief medical officer of the New York State Office of Mental Health, the nation’s largest state mental health agency.

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

We have no way of precisely knowing how many lives might have been saved, and how much grief and loneliness spared and economic ruin contained during COVID-19 if we had risen to its myriad challenges in a timely fashion. However, I feel we can safely say that the United States deserves to be graded with an “F” for its management of the pandemic.

To render this grade, we need only to read the countless verified reports of how critically needed public health measures were not taken soon enough, or sufficiently, to substantially mitigate human and societal suffering.

This began with the failure to protect doctors, nurses, and technicians, who did not have the personal protective equipment needed to prevent infection and spare risk to their loved ones. It soon extended to the country’s failure to adequately protect all its citizens and residents. COVID-19 then rained its grievous consequences disproportionately upon people of color, those living in poverty, and those with housing and food insecurity – those already greatly foreclosed from opportunities to exit from their circumstances.

We all have heard, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

Bear witness, colleagues and friends: It will be our shared shame if we too continue to fail in our response to COVID-19. But failure need not happen because protecting ourselves and our country is a solvable problem; complex and demanding for sure, but solvable.
 

To battle trauma, we must first define it

The sine qua non of a disaster is its psychic and social trauma. I asked Maureen Sayres Van Niel, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Minority and Underrepresented Caucus and a former steering committee member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, to define trauma. She said, “It is [the product of] a catastrophic, unexpected event over which we have little control, with grave consequences to the lives and psychological functioning of those individuals and groups affected.”

The COVID-19 pandemic is a massively amplified traumatic event because of the virulence and contagious properties of the virus and its variants; the absence of end date on the horizon; its effect as a proverbial ax that disproportionately falls on the majority of the populace experiencing racial and social inequities; and the ironic yet necessary imperative to distance ourselves from those we care about and who care about us.

Four interdependent factors drive the magnitude of the traumatic impact of a disaster: the degree of exposure to the life-threatening event; the duration and threat of recurrence; an individual’s preexisting (natural and human-made) trauma and mental and addictive disorders; and the adequacy of family and fundamental resources such as housing, food, safety, and access to health care (the social dimensions of health and mental health). These factors underline the “who,” “what,” “where,” and “how” of what should have been (and continue to be) an effective public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yet existing categories that we have used to predict risk for trauma no longer hold. The gravity, prevalence, and persistence of COVID-19’s horrors erase any differences among victims, witnesses, and bystanders. Dr Sayres Van Niel asserts that we have a “collective, national trauma.” In April, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Vaccine Monitor reported that 24% of U.S. adults had a close friend or family member who died of COVID-19. That’s 82 million Americans! Our country has eclipsed individual victimization and trauma because we are all in its maw.
 

Vital lessons from the past

In a previous column, I described my role as New York City’s mental health commissioner after 9/11 and the many lessons we learned during that multiyear process. Our work served as a template for other disasters to follow, such as Hurricane Sandy. Its value to COVID-19 is equally apparent.

We learned that those most at risk of developing symptomatic, functionally impairing mental illness had prior traumatic experiences (for example, from childhood abuse or neglect, violence, war, and forced displacement from their native land) and/or a preexisting mental or substance use disorder.

Once these individuals and communities were identified, we could prioritize their treatment and care. Doing so required mobilizing both inner and external (social) resources, which can be used before disaster strikes or in its wake.

For individuals, adaptive resources include developing any of a number of mind-body activities (for example, meditation, mindfulness, slow breathing, and yoga); sufficient but not necessarily excessive levels of exercise (as has been said, if exercise were a pill, it would be the most potent of medicines); nourishing diets; sleep, nature’s restorative state; and perhaps most important, attachment and human connection to people who care about you and whom you care about and trust.

One unexpected, yet now consistent, predictor of resilience in the wake of disaster is faith. This does not necessarily mean holding or following an institutional religion or belonging to house of worship (though, of course, that melds and augments faith with community). For a great many, myself included, there is spirituality, the belief in a greater power, which need not be a God yet instills a sense of the vastness, universality, and continuity of life.

For communities, adaptive resources include safe homes and neighborhoods; diminishing housing and food insecurity; education, including pre-K; employment, with a livable wage; ridding human interactions of the endless, so-called microaggressions (which are not micro at all, because they accrue) of race, ethnic, class, and age discrimination and injustice; and ready access to quality and affordable health care, now more than ever for the rising tide of mental and substance use disorders that COVID-19 has unleashed.

Every gain we make to ablate racism, social injustice, discrimination, and widely and deeply spread resource and opportunity inequities means more cohesion among the members of our collective tribe. Greater cohesion, a love for thy neighbor, and equity (in action, not polemics) will fuel the resilience we will need to withstand more of COVID-19’s ongoing trauma; that of other, inescapable disasters and losses; and the wear and tear of everyday life. The rewards of equity are priceless and include the dignity that derives from fairness and justice – given and received.
 

An unprecedented disaster requires a bold response

My, what a list. But to me, the encompassing nature of what’s needed means that we can make differences anywhere, everywhere, and in countless and continuous ways.

The measure of any society is in how it cares for those who are foreclosed, through no fault of their own, from what we all want: a life safe from violence, secure in housing and food, with loving relationships and the pride that comes of making contributions, each in our own, wonderfully unique way.

Where will we all be in a year, 2, or 3 from now? Prepared, or not? Emotionally inoculated, or not? Better equipped, or not? As divided, or more cohesive?

Well, I imagine that depends on each and every one of us.

Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, is a psychiatrist, public health doctor, and writer. He is an adjunct professor at the Columbia University School of Public Health, director of Columbia Psychiatry Media, chief medical officer of Bongo Media, and chair of the advisory board of Get Help. He has been chief medical officer of McLean Hospital, a Harvard teaching hospital; mental health commissioner of New York City (in the Bloomberg administration); and chief medical officer of the New York State Office of Mental Health, the nation’s largest state mental health agency.

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

We have no way of precisely knowing how many lives might have been saved, and how much grief and loneliness spared and economic ruin contained during COVID-19 if we had risen to its myriad challenges in a timely fashion. However, I feel we can safely say that the United States deserves to be graded with an “F” for its management of the pandemic.

To render this grade, we need only to read the countless verified reports of how critically needed public health measures were not taken soon enough, or sufficiently, to substantially mitigate human and societal suffering.

This began with the failure to protect doctors, nurses, and technicians, who did not have the personal protective equipment needed to prevent infection and spare risk to their loved ones. It soon extended to the country’s failure to adequately protect all its citizens and residents. COVID-19 then rained its grievous consequences disproportionately upon people of color, those living in poverty, and those with housing and food insecurity – those already greatly foreclosed from opportunities to exit from their circumstances.

We all have heard, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

Bear witness, colleagues and friends: It will be our shared shame if we too continue to fail in our response to COVID-19. But failure need not happen because protecting ourselves and our country is a solvable problem; complex and demanding for sure, but solvable.
 

To battle trauma, we must first define it

The sine qua non of a disaster is its psychic and social trauma. I asked Maureen Sayres Van Niel, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Minority and Underrepresented Caucus and a former steering committee member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, to define trauma. She said, “It is [the product of] a catastrophic, unexpected event over which we have little control, with grave consequences to the lives and psychological functioning of those individuals and groups affected.”

The COVID-19 pandemic is a massively amplified traumatic event because of the virulence and contagious properties of the virus and its variants; the absence of end date on the horizon; its effect as a proverbial ax that disproportionately falls on the majority of the populace experiencing racial and social inequities; and the ironic yet necessary imperative to distance ourselves from those we care about and who care about us.

Four interdependent factors drive the magnitude of the traumatic impact of a disaster: the degree of exposure to the life-threatening event; the duration and threat of recurrence; an individual’s preexisting (natural and human-made) trauma and mental and addictive disorders; and the adequacy of family and fundamental resources such as housing, food, safety, and access to health care (the social dimensions of health and mental health). These factors underline the “who,” “what,” “where,” and “how” of what should have been (and continue to be) an effective public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yet existing categories that we have used to predict risk for trauma no longer hold. The gravity, prevalence, and persistence of COVID-19’s horrors erase any differences among victims, witnesses, and bystanders. Dr Sayres Van Niel asserts that we have a “collective, national trauma.” In April, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Vaccine Monitor reported that 24% of U.S. adults had a close friend or family member who died of COVID-19. That’s 82 million Americans! Our country has eclipsed individual victimization and trauma because we are all in its maw.
 

Vital lessons from the past

In a previous column, I described my role as New York City’s mental health commissioner after 9/11 and the many lessons we learned during that multiyear process. Our work served as a template for other disasters to follow, such as Hurricane Sandy. Its value to COVID-19 is equally apparent.

We learned that those most at risk of developing symptomatic, functionally impairing mental illness had prior traumatic experiences (for example, from childhood abuse or neglect, violence, war, and forced displacement from their native land) and/or a preexisting mental or substance use disorder.

Once these individuals and communities were identified, we could prioritize their treatment and care. Doing so required mobilizing both inner and external (social) resources, which can be used before disaster strikes or in its wake.

For individuals, adaptive resources include developing any of a number of mind-body activities (for example, meditation, mindfulness, slow breathing, and yoga); sufficient but not necessarily excessive levels of exercise (as has been said, if exercise were a pill, it would be the most potent of medicines); nourishing diets; sleep, nature’s restorative state; and perhaps most important, attachment and human connection to people who care about you and whom you care about and trust.

One unexpected, yet now consistent, predictor of resilience in the wake of disaster is faith. This does not necessarily mean holding or following an institutional religion or belonging to house of worship (though, of course, that melds and augments faith with community). For a great many, myself included, there is spirituality, the belief in a greater power, which need not be a God yet instills a sense of the vastness, universality, and continuity of life.

For communities, adaptive resources include safe homes and neighborhoods; diminishing housing and food insecurity; education, including pre-K; employment, with a livable wage; ridding human interactions of the endless, so-called microaggressions (which are not micro at all, because they accrue) of race, ethnic, class, and age discrimination and injustice; and ready access to quality and affordable health care, now more than ever for the rising tide of mental and substance use disorders that COVID-19 has unleashed.

Every gain we make to ablate racism, social injustice, discrimination, and widely and deeply spread resource and opportunity inequities means more cohesion among the members of our collective tribe. Greater cohesion, a love for thy neighbor, and equity (in action, not polemics) will fuel the resilience we will need to withstand more of COVID-19’s ongoing trauma; that of other, inescapable disasters and losses; and the wear and tear of everyday life. The rewards of equity are priceless and include the dignity that derives from fairness and justice – given and received.
 

An unprecedented disaster requires a bold response

My, what a list. But to me, the encompassing nature of what’s needed means that we can make differences anywhere, everywhere, and in countless and continuous ways.

The measure of any society is in how it cares for those who are foreclosed, through no fault of their own, from what we all want: a life safe from violence, secure in housing and food, with loving relationships and the pride that comes of making contributions, each in our own, wonderfully unique way.

Where will we all be in a year, 2, or 3 from now? Prepared, or not? Emotionally inoculated, or not? Better equipped, or not? As divided, or more cohesive?

Well, I imagine that depends on each and every one of us.

Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, is a psychiatrist, public health doctor, and writer. He is an adjunct professor at the Columbia University School of Public Health, director of Columbia Psychiatry Media, chief medical officer of Bongo Media, and chair of the advisory board of Get Help. He has been chief medical officer of McLean Hospital, a Harvard teaching hospital; mental health commissioner of New York City (in the Bloomberg administration); and chief medical officer of the New York State Office of Mental Health, the nation’s largest state mental health agency.

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

In December 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization of the first COVID-19 vaccine presented us with a new tactic in the war against SARS-COV-2—and a new dilemma for obstetricians. What we had learned about COVID-19 infection in pregnancy by that point was alarming. While the vast majority (>90%) of pregnant women who contract COVID-19 recover without requiring hospitalization, pregnant women are at increased risk for severe illness and mechanical ventilation when compared with their nonpregnant counterparts.¹ Vertical transmission to the fetus is a rare event, but the increased risk of preterm birth, miscarriage, and preeclampsia makes the fetus a second victim in many cases.² Moreover, much is still unknown about the long-term impact of severe illness on maternal and fetal health.

Gaining vaccine approval

The COVID-19 vaccine, with its high efficacy rates in the nonpregnant adult population, presents an opportunity to reduce maternal morbidity related to this devastating illness. But unlike other vaccines, such as the flu shot and TDAP, results from prospective studies on COVID-19 vaccination of expectant women are pending. Under the best of circumstances, gaining acceptance of any vaccine during pregnancy faces barriers such as vaccine hesitancy and a general concern from pregnant women about the effect of medical interventions on the fetus. There is no reason to expect that either the mRNA vaccines or the replication-incompetent adenovirus recombinant vector vaccine could cause harm to the developing fetus, but the fact that currently available COVID-19 vaccines use newer technologies complicates the decision for many women.

Nevertheless, what we do know now is much more than we did in December, particularly when it comes to the mRNA vaccines. To date, observational studies of women who received the mRNA vaccine in pregnancy have shown no increased risk of adverse maternal, fetal, or obstetric outcomes.³ Emerging data also indicate that antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—the target of all 3 vaccines—is present in cord blood, potentially protecting the infant in the first months of life from contracting COVID-19 if the mother receives the vaccine during pregnancy.^4,5

Our approach to counseling

How can we best help our patients navigate the risks and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine? First, by acknowledging the obvious: We are in the midst of a pandemic with high rates of community spread, which makes COVID-19 different from any other vaccine-preventable disease at this time. Providing patients with a structure for making an educated decision is essential, taking into account (1) what we know about COVID-19 infection during pregnancy, (2) what we know about vaccine efficacy and safety to date, and (3) individual factors such as:

• The presence of comorbidities such as obesity, heart disease, respiratory disease, and diabetes.
• Potential exposures—“Do you have children in school or daycare? Do childcare providers or other workers come to your home? What is your occupation?”
• The ability to take precautions (social distancing, wearing a mask, etc)

All things considered, the decision to accept the COVID-19 vaccine or not ultimately belongs to the patient. Given disease prevalence and the latest information on vaccine safety in pregnancy, I have been advising my patients in the second trimester or beyond to receive the vaccine with the caveat that delaying the vaccine until the postpartum period is a completely valid alternative. The most important gift we can offer our patients is to arm them with the necessary information so that they can make the choice best for them and their family as we continue to fight this war on COVID-19.

In December 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization of the first COVID-19 vaccine presented us with a new tactic in the war against SARS-COV-2—and a new dilemma for obstetricians. What we had learned about COVID-19 infection in pregnancy by that point was alarming. While the vast majority (>90%) of pregnant women who contract COVID-19 recover without requiring hospitalization, pregnant women are at increased risk for severe illness and mechanical ventilation when compared with their nonpregnant counterparts.¹ Vertical transmission to the fetus is a rare event, but the increased risk of preterm birth, miscarriage, and preeclampsia makes the fetus a second victim in many cases.² Moreover, much is still unknown about the long-term impact of severe illness on maternal and fetal health.

Gaining vaccine approval

The COVID-19 vaccine, with its high efficacy rates in the nonpregnant adult population, presents an opportunity to reduce maternal morbidity related to this devastating illness. But unlike other vaccines, such as the flu shot and TDAP, results from prospective studies on COVID-19 vaccination of expectant women are pending. Under the best of circumstances, gaining acceptance of any vaccine during pregnancy faces barriers such as vaccine hesitancy and a general concern from pregnant women about the effect of medical interventions on the fetus. There is no reason to expect that either the mRNA vaccines or the replication-incompetent adenovirus recombinant vector vaccine could cause harm to the developing fetus, but the fact that currently available COVID-19 vaccines use newer technologies complicates the decision for many women.

Nevertheless, what we do know now is much more than we did in December, particularly when it comes to the mRNA vaccines. To date, observational studies of women who received the mRNA vaccine in pregnancy have shown no increased risk of adverse maternal, fetal, or obstetric outcomes.³ Emerging data also indicate that antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—the target of all 3 vaccines—is present in cord blood, potentially protecting the infant in the first months of life from contracting COVID-19 if the mother receives the vaccine during pregnancy.^4,5

Our approach to counseling

How can we best help our patients navigate the risks and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine? First, by acknowledging the obvious: We are in the midst of a pandemic with high rates of community spread, which makes COVID-19 different from any other vaccine-preventable disease at this time. Providing patients with a structure for making an educated decision is essential, taking into account (1) what we know about COVID-19 infection during pregnancy, (2) what we know about vaccine efficacy and safety to date, and (3) individual factors such as:

• The presence of comorbidities such as obesity, heart disease, respiratory disease, and diabetes.
• Potential exposures—“Do you have children in school or daycare? Do childcare providers or other workers come to your home? What is your occupation?”
• The ability to take precautions (social distancing, wearing a mask, etc)

All things considered, the decision to accept the COVID-19 vaccine or not ultimately belongs to the patient. Given disease prevalence and the latest information on vaccine safety in pregnancy, I have been advising my patients in the second trimester or beyond to receive the vaccine with the caveat that delaying the vaccine until the postpartum period is a completely valid alternative. The most important gift we can offer our patients is to arm them with the necessary information so that they can make the choice best for them and their family as we continue to fight this war on COVID-19.

In December 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization of the first COVID-19 vaccine presented us with a new tactic in the war against SARS-COV-2—and a new dilemma for obstetricians. What we had learned about COVID-19 infection in pregnancy by that point was alarming. While the vast majority (>90%) of pregnant women who contract COVID-19 recover without requiring hospitalization, pregnant women are at increased risk for severe illness and mechanical ventilation when compared with their nonpregnant counterparts.¹ Vertical transmission to the fetus is a rare event, but the increased risk of preterm birth, miscarriage, and preeclampsia makes the fetus a second victim in many cases.² Moreover, much is still unknown about the long-term impact of severe illness on maternal and fetal health.

Gaining vaccine approval

The COVID-19 vaccine, with its high efficacy rates in the nonpregnant adult population, presents an opportunity to reduce maternal morbidity related to this devastating illness. But unlike other vaccines, such as the flu shot and TDAP, results from prospective studies on COVID-19 vaccination of expectant women are pending. Under the best of circumstances, gaining acceptance of any vaccine during pregnancy faces barriers such as vaccine hesitancy and a general concern from pregnant women about the effect of medical interventions on the fetus. There is no reason to expect that either the mRNA vaccines or the replication-incompetent adenovirus recombinant vector vaccine could cause harm to the developing fetus, but the fact that currently available COVID-19 vaccines use newer technologies complicates the decision for many women.

Nevertheless, what we do know now is much more than we did in December, particularly when it comes to the mRNA vaccines. To date, observational studies of women who received the mRNA vaccine in pregnancy have shown no increased risk of adverse maternal, fetal, or obstetric outcomes.³ Emerging data also indicate that antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—the target of all 3 vaccines—is present in cord blood, potentially protecting the infant in the first months of life from contracting COVID-19 if the mother receives the vaccine during pregnancy.^4,5

Our approach to counseling

How can we best help our patients navigate the risks and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine? First, by acknowledging the obvious: We are in the midst of a pandemic with high rates of community spread, which makes COVID-19 different from any other vaccine-preventable disease at this time. Providing patients with a structure for making an educated decision is essential, taking into account (1) what we know about COVID-19 infection during pregnancy, (2) what we know about vaccine efficacy and safety to date, and (3) individual factors such as:

• The presence of comorbidities such as obesity, heart disease, respiratory disease, and diabetes.
• Potential exposures—“Do you have children in school or daycare? Do childcare providers or other workers come to your home? What is your occupation?”
• The ability to take precautions (social distancing, wearing a mask, etc)

All things considered, the decision to accept the COVID-19 vaccine or not ultimately belongs to the patient. Given disease prevalence and the latest information on vaccine safety in pregnancy, I have been advising my patients in the second trimester or beyond to receive the vaccine with the caveat that delaying the vaccine until the postpartum period is a completely valid alternative. The most important gift we can offer our patients is to arm them with the necessary information so that they can make the choice best for them and their family as we continue to fight this war on COVID-19.