Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.

Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).

The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events). 

There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).

However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.

Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.

The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.

“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.

“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”

The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.

Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.

The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).

During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.

“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.

Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.

Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.

“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”

As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”

Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine  in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.

Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.

Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.

She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”

Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.

Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.

The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.

Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).

The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events). 

There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).

However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.

Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.

The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.

“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.

“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”

The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.

Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.

The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).

During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.

“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.

Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.

Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.

“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”

As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”

Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine  in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.

Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.

Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.

She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”

Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.

Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.

The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.

Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).

The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events). 

There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).

However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.

Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.

The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.

“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.

“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”

The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.

Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.

The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).

During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.

“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.

Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.

Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.

“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”

As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”

Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine  in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.

Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.

Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.

She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”

Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.

Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.

The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

• The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
• Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
• At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.

“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.

In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.

After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.

At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.

The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”

For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.

In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.

Intervene with caution

Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.

Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.

“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.

Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.

Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.

In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”

If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.

Establish plans now

“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.

Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”

Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”

One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.

“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”

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

The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

• The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
• Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
• At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.

“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.

In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.

After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.

At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.

The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”

For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.

In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.

Intervene with caution

Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.

Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.

“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.

Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.

Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.

In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”

If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.

Establish plans now

“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.

Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”

Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”

One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.

“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”

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

The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

• The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
• Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
• At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.

“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.

In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.

After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.

At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.

The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”

For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.

In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.

Intervene with caution

Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.

Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.

“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.

Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.

Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.

In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”

If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.

Establish plans now

“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.

Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”

Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”

One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.

“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization on March 28, 2020, allowing for the usage of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate products in certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The products, currently stored by the Strategic National Stockpile, will be distributed by the SNS to states so that doctors may prescribe the drugs to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the absence of appropriate or feasible clinical trials. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ship the products to states.

According to the Emergency Use Authorization, fact sheets will be provided to health care providers and patients with important information about hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate, including the risks of using them to treat COVID-19.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization on March 28, 2020, allowing for the usage of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate products in certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The products, currently stored by the Strategic National Stockpile, will be distributed by the SNS to states so that doctors may prescribe the drugs to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the absence of appropriate or feasible clinical trials. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ship the products to states.

According to the Emergency Use Authorization, fact sheets will be provided to health care providers and patients with important information about hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate, including the risks of using them to treat COVID-19.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization on March 28, 2020, allowing for the usage of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate products in certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The products, currently stored by the Strategic National Stockpile, will be distributed by the SNS to states so that doctors may prescribe the drugs to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the absence of appropriate or feasible clinical trials. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ship the products to states.

According to the Emergency Use Authorization, fact sheets will be provided to health care providers and patients with important information about hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate, including the risks of using them to treat COVID-19.

lfranki@mdedge.com

Residents of low-income communities in the District of Columbia have restricted access to a pharmacy registered and activated with iPLEDGE, results from a survey demonstrated.

Prescription of isotretinoin is regulated by the iPLEDGE program, which strives to ensure that no female patient starts isotretinoin therapy if pregnant and that no female patient on isotretinoin therapy becomes pregnant. “Over the years, many studies have criticized the program by demonstrating that iPLEDGE has promoted health care disparities,” Nidhi Shah said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. “For example, racial minorities and women are more likely to be underprescribed isotretinoin, as well as face more delays in treatment.”

In an effort to evaluate the geographic distribution of iPLEDGE pharmacies in Washington DC, and its correlation with sociodemographic factors, Ms. Shah, a third-year medical student at the George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues obtained a list of active pharmacies in Washington from the local government. They also surveyed each outpatient pharmacy in the District of Columbia to verify their iPLEDGE registration status, for a total of 146 pharmacies.

Ms. Shah reported that 82% of all outpatient pharmacies were enrolled in iPLEDGE. However, enrollment significantly varied by the type of pharmacy. For example, 100% of chain pharmacies were enrolled, compared with 46% of independent pharmacies and 60% of hospital-based pharmacies.

When the researchers evaluated the number and type of iPLEDGE pharmacy by each of the eight wards in Washington, they observed a high density of pharmacies in wards 1 and 2, communities with a generally low proportion of residents who live in poverty, and low density of pharmacies in wards 7 and 8, communities with a higher proportion of residents who live in poverty. In addition, there were more independent than chain pharmacies in wards 7 and 8, and residents in those wards had a greater distance to travel to reach an iPLEDGE pharmacy, compared with residents who live in the other wards.

When Ms. Shah and colleagues examined the correlation between pharmacies per 10,000 residents and specific sociodemographic factors, they observed a strong, positive correlation between iPLEDGE pharmacy density and median household income (P = .0003). On the other hand, there was a strong negative correlation between iPLEDGE pharmacy density and the percentage of individuals with public insurance (P less than .0001), as well as the percentage of nonwhite individuals (P = .0009).

“Our study highlights the lack of isotretinoin-dispensing pharmacies in low-income communities,” Ms. Shah concluded. “Not only are there fewer such pharmacies available in low income communities, but the residents must also travel further to reach them. The spatial heterogeneity of iPLEDGE pharmacies may be an important patient barrier to timely access of isotretinoin, especially for female patients who have a strict 7-day window to collect their medication. We hope that future public health reform works to close this gap.”

The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms. Shah reported having no disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Residents of low-income communities in the District of Columbia have restricted access to a pharmacy registered and activated with iPLEDGE, results from a survey demonstrated.

Prescription of isotretinoin is regulated by the iPLEDGE program, which strives to ensure that no female patient starts isotretinoin therapy if pregnant and that no female patient on isotretinoin therapy becomes pregnant. “Over the years, many studies have criticized the program by demonstrating that iPLEDGE has promoted health care disparities,” Nidhi Shah said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. “For example, racial minorities and women are more likely to be underprescribed isotretinoin, as well as face more delays in treatment.”

In an effort to evaluate the geographic distribution of iPLEDGE pharmacies in Washington DC, and its correlation with sociodemographic factors, Ms. Shah, a third-year medical student at the George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues obtained a list of active pharmacies in Washington from the local government. They also surveyed each outpatient pharmacy in the District of Columbia to verify their iPLEDGE registration status, for a total of 146 pharmacies.

Ms. Shah reported that 82% of all outpatient pharmacies were enrolled in iPLEDGE. However, enrollment significantly varied by the type of pharmacy. For example, 100% of chain pharmacies were enrolled, compared with 46% of independent pharmacies and 60% of hospital-based pharmacies.

When the researchers evaluated the number and type of iPLEDGE pharmacy by each of the eight wards in Washington, they observed a high density of pharmacies in wards 1 and 2, communities with a generally low proportion of residents who live in poverty, and low density of pharmacies in wards 7 and 8, communities with a higher proportion of residents who live in poverty. In addition, there were more independent than chain pharmacies in wards 7 and 8, and residents in those wards had a greater distance to travel to reach an iPLEDGE pharmacy, compared with residents who live in the other wards.

When Ms. Shah and colleagues examined the correlation between pharmacies per 10,000 residents and specific sociodemographic factors, they observed a strong, positive correlation between iPLEDGE pharmacy density and median household income (P = .0003). On the other hand, there was a strong negative correlation between iPLEDGE pharmacy density and the percentage of individuals with public insurance (P less than .0001), as well as the percentage of nonwhite individuals (P = .0009).

“Our study highlights the lack of isotretinoin-dispensing pharmacies in low-income communities,” Ms. Shah concluded. “Not only are there fewer such pharmacies available in low income communities, but the residents must also travel further to reach them. The spatial heterogeneity of iPLEDGE pharmacies may be an important patient barrier to timely access of isotretinoin, especially for female patients who have a strict 7-day window to collect their medication. We hope that future public health reform works to close this gap.”

The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms. Shah reported having no disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Residents of low-income communities in the District of Columbia have restricted access to a pharmacy registered and activated with iPLEDGE, results from a survey demonstrated.

Prescription of isotretinoin is regulated by the iPLEDGE program, which strives to ensure that no female patient starts isotretinoin therapy if pregnant and that no female patient on isotretinoin therapy becomes pregnant. “Over the years, many studies have criticized the program by demonstrating that iPLEDGE has promoted health care disparities,” Nidhi Shah said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. “For example, racial minorities and women are more likely to be underprescribed isotretinoin, as well as face more delays in treatment.”

In an effort to evaluate the geographic distribution of iPLEDGE pharmacies in Washington DC, and its correlation with sociodemographic factors, Ms. Shah, a third-year medical student at the George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues obtained a list of active pharmacies in Washington from the local government. They also surveyed each outpatient pharmacy in the District of Columbia to verify their iPLEDGE registration status, for a total of 146 pharmacies.

Ms. Shah reported that 82% of all outpatient pharmacies were enrolled in iPLEDGE. However, enrollment significantly varied by the type of pharmacy. For example, 100% of chain pharmacies were enrolled, compared with 46% of independent pharmacies and 60% of hospital-based pharmacies.

When the researchers evaluated the number and type of iPLEDGE pharmacy by each of the eight wards in Washington, they observed a high density of pharmacies in wards 1 and 2, communities with a generally low proportion of residents who live in poverty, and low density of pharmacies in wards 7 and 8, communities with a higher proportion of residents who live in poverty. In addition, there were more independent than chain pharmacies in wards 7 and 8, and residents in those wards had a greater distance to travel to reach an iPLEDGE pharmacy, compared with residents who live in the other wards.

When Ms. Shah and colleagues examined the correlation between pharmacies per 10,000 residents and specific sociodemographic factors, they observed a strong, positive correlation between iPLEDGE pharmacy density and median household income (P = .0003). On the other hand, there was a strong negative correlation between iPLEDGE pharmacy density and the percentage of individuals with public insurance (P less than .0001), as well as the percentage of nonwhite individuals (P = .0009).

“Our study highlights the lack of isotretinoin-dispensing pharmacies in low-income communities,” Ms. Shah concluded. “Not only are there fewer such pharmacies available in low income communities, but the residents must also travel further to reach them. The spatial heterogeneity of iPLEDGE pharmacies may be an important patient barrier to timely access of isotretinoin, especially for female patients who have a strict 7-day window to collect their medication. We hope that future public health reform works to close this gap.”

The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms. Shah reported having no disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.

Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.

To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.

“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.

The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.

A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”

Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.

The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.

Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.

Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.

To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.

“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.

The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.

A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”

Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.

The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.

Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.

Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.

To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.

“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.

The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.

A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”

Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.

The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.

The guidelines allow for the addition of short-term clopidogrel to an oral anticoagulant (OAC) in patients with an established OAC indication, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But does the extra antithrombotic protection come with safety issues?

It apparently did in the POPULAR-TAVI trial, which saw an excess of major and minor bleeding in such patients already on an OAC when they underwent TAVR and who then took the antiplatelet agent for the next 3 months.

The patients who instead continued on their OAC as the only post-TAVR antithrombotic, compared with those on double therapy, showed a 37% lower 1-year risk of any bleeding, including major and disabling bleeding.

Importantly, they didn’t seem to pay a price in excess ischemic events, such as stroke or myocardial infarction (MI).

The trial argues against adding clopidogrel on top of OAC in TAVR patients with an OAC indication in order to reduce their risk of bleeding, Jurriën ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

Whether the ischemic event risk was comparable with and without clopidogrel is less clear. “As the study is not powered for the ischemic end points, the answer is less definite. But we did not see a hint of a higher ischemic event rate, especially stroke, in the OAC-alone group,” ten Berg said.

“So we are pretty confident in saying that OAC alone is the optimal treatment.”

The results of POPULAR-TAVI were presented by Vincent Nijenhuis, MD, also from St. Antonius Hospital, on March 29 during the virtual presentation of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session/World Congress of Cardiology. Nijenhuis is also first author on the trial’s simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The only reason to add an antiplatelet in TAVR patients who need to be on an OAC for another indication is to prevent ischemic events like MI, stroke, or death, agreed George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

But that protection apparently wasn’t needed; for patients on OAC only, “the overall risk–benefit ratio was favorable for them both ways. Although the study is small, I think the findings would be clinically meaningful,” said Dangas, who was not involved in POPULAR-TAVI but was lead author on the GALILEO trial publication.

GALILEO tested a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) against dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing TAVR but without a conventional OAC indication. The trial was halted because the DOAC group started to show an excess of bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality.

Most POPULAR-TAVI patients were on vitamin K antagonists, but about a quarter were taking DOACs. Clopidogrel was given on an open-label basis.

The trial suggests that, for TAVR patients with an indication for lifelong OAC, “it does appear to be safe to give only an anticoagulant, whether it’s warfarin or a DOAC, and not add clopidogrel,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“The bottom line appears to be that it’s no worse, and is probably better in terms of bleeding events,” said Bonow, who wasn’t involved in POPULAR-TAVI.

But there are difficulties in interpreting the trial that stem from its design and other issues, he said. For example, it can’t really be concluded that adding an antiplatelet agent to OAC in such patients who undergo TAVR, according to commonly practiced techniques, will increase the risk of bleeding compared with OAC alone.

To begin with, Bonow said, substituting aspirin for clopidogrel might have produced better double-therapy results. But the bigger issues, Bonow said, center on the discretion its operators had in whether to maintain or suspend the patients’ OAC during the TAVR procedure, as well as the unusual bleeding definitions used in the trial.

The first POPULAR-TAVI primary end point was any bleeding that met Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria; the second was nonprocedural bleeding that met the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition.

“Because the VARC-2 classification does not distinguish between procedure-related and nonprocedure-related bleeding events, procedure-related events were defined as BARC type 4 severe bleeding,” the trial’s journal report states. Therefore, “most bleeding at the puncture site was counted as nonprocedure-related.”

It may be Bonow’s biggest issue with the trial, he said. “They’re terming these events that occurred periprocedurally, in the first day or first hours of the procedure, as being ‘nonprocedural’ because they didn’t represent severe BARC bleeding, where you have a subarachnoid hemorrhage or require transfusions.”

An editorial accompanying the trial report also knocks this aspect of the trial design. Although the trial “confirmed” a higher incidence of any bleeding in the double-therapy group, “there are concerns regarding the classification of bleeding and the reliability of secondary outcome analysis,” writes Frederick Feit, MD, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

“Bleeding occurring during TAVI or the index hospitalization was unadvisedly defined as non-procedure related, even if it occurred at the access site,” the editorial notes.

Ten Berg noted that procedural bleeding is frequent in TAVI, but the VARC-2 definition doesn’t accommodate them. So “we also used the BARC definition for procedural bleeding, BARC-4,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“However, BARC-4 describes bleeding during surgery, and it turned out that in POPULAR- TAVI only one patient had BARC-4 bleeding. So we do not at all agree with the editorial.”

Still, the trial’s reported event-rate curves show that “most of the step-up in bleeding, in either arm of the trial, occurred immediately,” Bonow observed. A more consistent, flat trend followed thereafter out to 3 months.

“So half of the bleeding in both arms of the trial occurred at the site of the arterial puncture. Though it wasn’t considered severe, it was indeed periprocedural,” Bonow said, interpreting the results.

The POPULAR-TAVI journal report says the procedures were performed according to local site protocols, and site physicians were allowed to decide whether to continue or suspend OAC. But “the trial protocol advised physicians to continue oral anticoagulation during admission for the TAVI procedure.”

Many of the patients, regardless of randomization group, “went through the procedure under full anticoagulation,” Dangas agreed. POPULAR-TAVI, it seems, “is the first anticoagulation study ever to start anticoagulation before the procedure.”

Bleeding event rates in the trial “are somewhat high because of this unusual procedural feature of the study,” Dangas said.

“It’s therefore not surprising that so much of the bleeding occurred in the first hours of the procedure itself,” observed Bonow.

The trial enrolled 313 patients in four European countries who were on OAC for an approved indication, predominantly AF, and underwent TAVR. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 45.4% were women. They were randomly assigned to receive or not receive clopidogrel in a loading dose, followed by 75 mg/d on top of their OAC for 3 months, and were followed out to a year.

All bleeding that met VARC-2 criteria, the first primary end point, occurred in 21.7% of the 157 patients on OAC alone and 34.6% of the 156 who received double therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43 - 0.90; P = .011).

The second primary end point, “nonprocedural” bleeding that met BARC-4 criteria, occurred in 21.7% and 34.0%, respectively, of patients (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44 - 0.92; P = .015).

There were also two secondary composite outcomes. The first consisted of nonprocedural bleeding, cardiovascular (CV) death, any stroke, and MI, and was seen in 31.2% of patients on OAC alone and 45.5% of those on OAC plus clopidogrel (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 - 0.92), an absolute difference that was within the prospectively defined noninferiority margins.

The other secondary end point — CV death, ischemic stroke, and MI — occurred in 13.4% of those receiving only OAC and 17.3% on added clopidogrel (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 - 1.31), which was nonsignificant for superiority.

“Could they have done better by holding the anticoagulation, whether warfarin or a DOAC, during that time? That’s what I think many centers might do if they’re performing a TAVR,” Bonow said.

“It seems to me that could have been done in this trial as well: they could have stopped the anticoagulation, done the procedure, and started the anticoagulation after, the way you would normally in a patient getting a TAVR.”

Such a practice might have reduced the risk of procedural bleeding as it is usually defined in TAVR in both groups, thereby potentially blunting any difference in bleeding rate between the two groups.

“That’s my take on it.” Still, he said, the trial’s message remains: OAC without clopidogrel is safe in POPULAR-TAVI-like patients.

Nijenhuis had no disclosures. Ten Berg disclosed no industry ties. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Bonow has previously reported no disclosures. Dangas has previously disclosed receiving grants and fees from Bayer, fees from Janssen; grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo; and other compensation from Medtronic. Feit discloses personal fees from Abbott Vascular and other relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Sapheon.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The guidelines allow for the addition of short-term clopidogrel to an oral anticoagulant (OAC) in patients with an established OAC indication, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But does the extra antithrombotic protection come with safety issues?

It apparently did in the POPULAR-TAVI trial, which saw an excess of major and minor bleeding in such patients already on an OAC when they underwent TAVR and who then took the antiplatelet agent for the next 3 months.

The patients who instead continued on their OAC as the only post-TAVR antithrombotic, compared with those on double therapy, showed a 37% lower 1-year risk of any bleeding, including major and disabling bleeding.

Importantly, they didn’t seem to pay a price in excess ischemic events, such as stroke or myocardial infarction (MI).

The trial argues against adding clopidogrel on top of OAC in TAVR patients with an OAC indication in order to reduce their risk of bleeding, Jurriën ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

Whether the ischemic event risk was comparable with and without clopidogrel is less clear. “As the study is not powered for the ischemic end points, the answer is less definite. But we did not see a hint of a higher ischemic event rate, especially stroke, in the OAC-alone group,” ten Berg said.

“So we are pretty confident in saying that OAC alone is the optimal treatment.”

The results of POPULAR-TAVI were presented by Vincent Nijenhuis, MD, also from St. Antonius Hospital, on March 29 during the virtual presentation of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session/World Congress of Cardiology. Nijenhuis is also first author on the trial’s simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The only reason to add an antiplatelet in TAVR patients who need to be on an OAC for another indication is to prevent ischemic events like MI, stroke, or death, agreed George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

But that protection apparently wasn’t needed; for patients on OAC only, “the overall risk–benefit ratio was favorable for them both ways. Although the study is small, I think the findings would be clinically meaningful,” said Dangas, who was not involved in POPULAR-TAVI but was lead author on the GALILEO trial publication.

GALILEO tested a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) against dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing TAVR but without a conventional OAC indication. The trial was halted because the DOAC group started to show an excess of bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality.

Most POPULAR-TAVI patients were on vitamin K antagonists, but about a quarter were taking DOACs. Clopidogrel was given on an open-label basis.

The trial suggests that, for TAVR patients with an indication for lifelong OAC, “it does appear to be safe to give only an anticoagulant, whether it’s warfarin or a DOAC, and not add clopidogrel,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“The bottom line appears to be that it’s no worse, and is probably better in terms of bleeding events,” said Bonow, who wasn’t involved in POPULAR-TAVI.

But there are difficulties in interpreting the trial that stem from its design and other issues, he said. For example, it can’t really be concluded that adding an antiplatelet agent to OAC in such patients who undergo TAVR, according to commonly practiced techniques, will increase the risk of bleeding compared with OAC alone.

To begin with, Bonow said, substituting aspirin for clopidogrel might have produced better double-therapy results. But the bigger issues, Bonow said, center on the discretion its operators had in whether to maintain or suspend the patients’ OAC during the TAVR procedure, as well as the unusual bleeding definitions used in the trial.

The first POPULAR-TAVI primary end point was any bleeding that met Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria; the second was nonprocedural bleeding that met the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition.

“Because the VARC-2 classification does not distinguish between procedure-related and nonprocedure-related bleeding events, procedure-related events were defined as BARC type 4 severe bleeding,” the trial’s journal report states. Therefore, “most bleeding at the puncture site was counted as nonprocedure-related.”

It may be Bonow’s biggest issue with the trial, he said. “They’re terming these events that occurred periprocedurally, in the first day or first hours of the procedure, as being ‘nonprocedural’ because they didn’t represent severe BARC bleeding, where you have a subarachnoid hemorrhage or require transfusions.”

An editorial accompanying the trial report also knocks this aspect of the trial design. Although the trial “confirmed” a higher incidence of any bleeding in the double-therapy group, “there are concerns regarding the classification of bleeding and the reliability of secondary outcome analysis,” writes Frederick Feit, MD, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

“Bleeding occurring during TAVI or the index hospitalization was unadvisedly defined as non-procedure related, even if it occurred at the access site,” the editorial notes.

Ten Berg noted that procedural bleeding is frequent in TAVI, but the VARC-2 definition doesn’t accommodate them. So “we also used the BARC definition for procedural bleeding, BARC-4,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“However, BARC-4 describes bleeding during surgery, and it turned out that in POPULAR- TAVI only one patient had BARC-4 bleeding. So we do not at all agree with the editorial.”

Still, the trial’s reported event-rate curves show that “most of the step-up in bleeding, in either arm of the trial, occurred immediately,” Bonow observed. A more consistent, flat trend followed thereafter out to 3 months.

“So half of the bleeding in both arms of the trial occurred at the site of the arterial puncture. Though it wasn’t considered severe, it was indeed periprocedural,” Bonow said, interpreting the results.

The POPULAR-TAVI journal report says the procedures were performed according to local site protocols, and site physicians were allowed to decide whether to continue or suspend OAC. But “the trial protocol advised physicians to continue oral anticoagulation during admission for the TAVI procedure.”

Many of the patients, regardless of randomization group, “went through the procedure under full anticoagulation,” Dangas agreed. POPULAR-TAVI, it seems, “is the first anticoagulation study ever to start anticoagulation before the procedure.”

Bleeding event rates in the trial “are somewhat high because of this unusual procedural feature of the study,” Dangas said.

“It’s therefore not surprising that so much of the bleeding occurred in the first hours of the procedure itself,” observed Bonow.

The trial enrolled 313 patients in four European countries who were on OAC for an approved indication, predominantly AF, and underwent TAVR. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 45.4% were women. They were randomly assigned to receive or not receive clopidogrel in a loading dose, followed by 75 mg/d on top of their OAC for 3 months, and were followed out to a year.

All bleeding that met VARC-2 criteria, the first primary end point, occurred in 21.7% of the 157 patients on OAC alone and 34.6% of the 156 who received double therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43 - 0.90; P = .011).

The second primary end point, “nonprocedural” bleeding that met BARC-4 criteria, occurred in 21.7% and 34.0%, respectively, of patients (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44 - 0.92; P = .015).

There were also two secondary composite outcomes. The first consisted of nonprocedural bleeding, cardiovascular (CV) death, any stroke, and MI, and was seen in 31.2% of patients on OAC alone and 45.5% of those on OAC plus clopidogrel (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 - 0.92), an absolute difference that was within the prospectively defined noninferiority margins.

The other secondary end point — CV death, ischemic stroke, and MI — occurred in 13.4% of those receiving only OAC and 17.3% on added clopidogrel (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 - 1.31), which was nonsignificant for superiority.

“Could they have done better by holding the anticoagulation, whether warfarin or a DOAC, during that time? That’s what I think many centers might do if they’re performing a TAVR,” Bonow said.

“It seems to me that could have been done in this trial as well: they could have stopped the anticoagulation, done the procedure, and started the anticoagulation after, the way you would normally in a patient getting a TAVR.”

Such a practice might have reduced the risk of procedural bleeding as it is usually defined in TAVR in both groups, thereby potentially blunting any difference in bleeding rate between the two groups.

“That’s my take on it.” Still, he said, the trial’s message remains: OAC without clopidogrel is safe in POPULAR-TAVI-like patients.

Nijenhuis had no disclosures. Ten Berg disclosed no industry ties. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Bonow has previously reported no disclosures. Dangas has previously disclosed receiving grants and fees from Bayer, fees from Janssen; grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo; and other compensation from Medtronic. Feit discloses personal fees from Abbott Vascular and other relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Sapheon.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The guidelines allow for the addition of short-term clopidogrel to an oral anticoagulant (OAC) in patients with an established OAC indication, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But does the extra antithrombotic protection come with safety issues?

It apparently did in the POPULAR-TAVI trial, which saw an excess of major and minor bleeding in such patients already on an OAC when they underwent TAVR and who then took the antiplatelet agent for the next 3 months.

The patients who instead continued on their OAC as the only post-TAVR antithrombotic, compared with those on double therapy, showed a 37% lower 1-year risk of any bleeding, including major and disabling bleeding.

Importantly, they didn’t seem to pay a price in excess ischemic events, such as stroke or myocardial infarction (MI).

The trial argues against adding clopidogrel on top of OAC in TAVR patients with an OAC indication in order to reduce their risk of bleeding, Jurriën ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

Whether the ischemic event risk was comparable with and without clopidogrel is less clear. “As the study is not powered for the ischemic end points, the answer is less definite. But we did not see a hint of a higher ischemic event rate, especially stroke, in the OAC-alone group,” ten Berg said.

“So we are pretty confident in saying that OAC alone is the optimal treatment.”

The results of POPULAR-TAVI were presented by Vincent Nijenhuis, MD, also from St. Antonius Hospital, on March 29 during the virtual presentation of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session/World Congress of Cardiology. Nijenhuis is also first author on the trial’s simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The only reason to add an antiplatelet in TAVR patients who need to be on an OAC for another indication is to prevent ischemic events like MI, stroke, or death, agreed George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

But that protection apparently wasn’t needed; for patients on OAC only, “the overall risk–benefit ratio was favorable for them both ways. Although the study is small, I think the findings would be clinically meaningful,” said Dangas, who was not involved in POPULAR-TAVI but was lead author on the GALILEO trial publication.

GALILEO tested a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) against dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing TAVR but without a conventional OAC indication. The trial was halted because the DOAC group started to show an excess of bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality.

Most POPULAR-TAVI patients were on vitamin K antagonists, but about a quarter were taking DOACs. Clopidogrel was given on an open-label basis.

The trial suggests that, for TAVR patients with an indication for lifelong OAC, “it does appear to be safe to give only an anticoagulant, whether it’s warfarin or a DOAC, and not add clopidogrel,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“The bottom line appears to be that it’s no worse, and is probably better in terms of bleeding events,” said Bonow, who wasn’t involved in POPULAR-TAVI.

But there are difficulties in interpreting the trial that stem from its design and other issues, he said. For example, it can’t really be concluded that adding an antiplatelet agent to OAC in such patients who undergo TAVR, according to commonly practiced techniques, will increase the risk of bleeding compared with OAC alone.

To begin with, Bonow said, substituting aspirin for clopidogrel might have produced better double-therapy results. But the bigger issues, Bonow said, center on the discretion its operators had in whether to maintain or suspend the patients’ OAC during the TAVR procedure, as well as the unusual bleeding definitions used in the trial.

The first POPULAR-TAVI primary end point was any bleeding that met Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria; the second was nonprocedural bleeding that met the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition.

“Because the VARC-2 classification does not distinguish between procedure-related and nonprocedure-related bleeding events, procedure-related events were defined as BARC type 4 severe bleeding,” the trial’s journal report states. Therefore, “most bleeding at the puncture site was counted as nonprocedure-related.”

It may be Bonow’s biggest issue with the trial, he said. “They’re terming these events that occurred periprocedurally, in the first day or first hours of the procedure, as being ‘nonprocedural’ because they didn’t represent severe BARC bleeding, where you have a subarachnoid hemorrhage or require transfusions.”

An editorial accompanying the trial report also knocks this aspect of the trial design. Although the trial “confirmed” a higher incidence of any bleeding in the double-therapy group, “there are concerns regarding the classification of bleeding and the reliability of secondary outcome analysis,” writes Frederick Feit, MD, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

“Bleeding occurring during TAVI or the index hospitalization was unadvisedly defined as non-procedure related, even if it occurred at the access site,” the editorial notes.

Ten Berg noted that procedural bleeding is frequent in TAVI, but the VARC-2 definition doesn’t accommodate them. So “we also used the BARC definition for procedural bleeding, BARC-4,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“However, BARC-4 describes bleeding during surgery, and it turned out that in POPULAR- TAVI only one patient had BARC-4 bleeding. So we do not at all agree with the editorial.”

Still, the trial’s reported event-rate curves show that “most of the step-up in bleeding, in either arm of the trial, occurred immediately,” Bonow observed. A more consistent, flat trend followed thereafter out to 3 months.

“So half of the bleeding in both arms of the trial occurred at the site of the arterial puncture. Though it wasn’t considered severe, it was indeed periprocedural,” Bonow said, interpreting the results.

The POPULAR-TAVI journal report says the procedures were performed according to local site protocols, and site physicians were allowed to decide whether to continue or suspend OAC. But “the trial protocol advised physicians to continue oral anticoagulation during admission for the TAVI procedure.”

Many of the patients, regardless of randomization group, “went through the procedure under full anticoagulation,” Dangas agreed. POPULAR-TAVI, it seems, “is the first anticoagulation study ever to start anticoagulation before the procedure.”

Bleeding event rates in the trial “are somewhat high because of this unusual procedural feature of the study,” Dangas said.

“It’s therefore not surprising that so much of the bleeding occurred in the first hours of the procedure itself,” observed Bonow.

The trial enrolled 313 patients in four European countries who were on OAC for an approved indication, predominantly AF, and underwent TAVR. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 45.4% were women. They were randomly assigned to receive or not receive clopidogrel in a loading dose, followed by 75 mg/d on top of their OAC for 3 months, and were followed out to a year.

All bleeding that met VARC-2 criteria, the first primary end point, occurred in 21.7% of the 157 patients on OAC alone and 34.6% of the 156 who received double therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43 - 0.90; P = .011).

The second primary end point, “nonprocedural” bleeding that met BARC-4 criteria, occurred in 21.7% and 34.0%, respectively, of patients (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44 - 0.92; P = .015).

There were also two secondary composite outcomes. The first consisted of nonprocedural bleeding, cardiovascular (CV) death, any stroke, and MI, and was seen in 31.2% of patients on OAC alone and 45.5% of those on OAC plus clopidogrel (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 - 0.92), an absolute difference that was within the prospectively defined noninferiority margins.

The other secondary end point — CV death, ischemic stroke, and MI — occurred in 13.4% of those receiving only OAC and 17.3% on added clopidogrel (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 - 1.31), which was nonsignificant for superiority.

“Could they have done better by holding the anticoagulation, whether warfarin or a DOAC, during that time? That’s what I think many centers might do if they’re performing a TAVR,” Bonow said.

“It seems to me that could have been done in this trial as well: they could have stopped the anticoagulation, done the procedure, and started the anticoagulation after, the way you would normally in a patient getting a TAVR.”

Such a practice might have reduced the risk of procedural bleeding as it is usually defined in TAVR in both groups, thereby potentially blunting any difference in bleeding rate between the two groups.

“That’s my take on it.” Still, he said, the trial’s message remains: OAC without clopidogrel is safe in POPULAR-TAVI-like patients.

Nijenhuis had no disclosures. Ten Berg disclosed no industry ties. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Bonow has previously reported no disclosures. Dangas has previously disclosed receiving grants and fees from Bayer, fees from Janssen; grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo; and other compensation from Medtronic. Feit discloses personal fees from Abbott Vascular and other relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Sapheon.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A meme has been going around the Internet in which a Muppet is dressed as a doctor, and the caption declares: “If you don’t want to be intubated by a psychiatrist, stay home!” This meme is meant as a commentary on health care worker shortages. But it also touches on the concerns of psychiatrists who might be questioning our role in the pandemic, given that we are physicians who do not regularly rely on labs or imaging to guide treatment. And we rarely even touch our patients.

As observed by Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry, who referred to anxiety as endemic during a viral pandemic (Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19[4]:e3-5), our society is experiencing intense psychological repercussions from the pandemic. These repercussions will evolve from anxiety to despair, and for some, to resilience.

All jokes aside about the medical knowledge of psychiatrists, we are on the cutting edge of how to address the pandemic of fear and uncertainty gripping individuals and society across the nation.

Isn’t it our role as psychiatrists to help people face the reality of personal and societal crises? Aren’t we trained to help people find their internal reserves, bolster them with medications and/or psychotherapy, and prepare them to respond to challenges? I propose that our training and particular experience of hearing patients’ stories has indeed prepared us to receive surreal information and package it into a palatable, even therapeutic, form for our patients.

I’d like to present two cases I’ve recently seen during the first stages of the COVID-19 pandemic juxtaposed with patients I saw during “normal” times. These cases show that, as psychiatrists, we are prepared to face the psychological impact of this crisis.

A patient called me about worsened anxiety after she’d been sidelined at home from her job as a waitress and was currently spending 12 hours a day with her overbearing mother. She had always used her work to buffer her anxiety, as the fast pace of the restaurant kept her from ruminating.

The call reminded me of ones I’d receive from female patients during the MeToo movement and particularly during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, in which a sexual assault victim and alleged perpetrator faced off on television. During therapy and medication management sessions alike, I would talk to women struggling with the number of news stories about victims coming forward after sexual assault. They were reliving their humiliations, and despite the empowering nature of the movement, they felt vulnerable in the shadow of memories of their perpetrators.

The advice I gave then is similar to the guidance I give now, and also is closely related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice on its website on how to manage the mental health impact of COVID-19. People can be informed without suffering by taking these steps:

• Limit the amount of news and social media consumed, and if possible, try to schedule news consumption into discrete periods that are not close to bedtime or other periods meant for relaxation.
• Reach out to loved ones and friends who remind you of strength and better times.
• Make time to relax and unwind, either through resting or engaging in an activity you enjoy.
• Take care of your body and mind with exercise.
• Try for 8 hours of sleep a night (even if it doesn’t happen).
• Use techniques such as meditating, doing yoga, or breathing to practice focusing your attention somewhere.

During this crisis, tactful self-disclosure might be appropriate and therapeutic. All of our lives have been disrupted by COVID-19 and acknowledging this to patients can help them feel less isolated and vulnerable. Our patients with diagnosed psychiatric disorders will be more susceptible to crippling anxiety, exacerbations in panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, and resurgence of suicidal ideation in the face of uncertainty and despair. They may also be more likely to experience the socioeconomic fallout of this pandemic. But it’s not just these individuals who will be hit with intense feelings as we wonder what the next day, month, or 6 months hold for us, our families, our friends, our country, and our world.

Recently, I had one of the more surreal experiences of my professional life. I work as a consulation-liaison psychiatrist on the medical wards, and I was consulted to treat a young woman from Central America with schizophrenia who made a serious suicide attempt in mid-February before COVID-19 was part of the lexicon.

After an overdose, she developed aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome and ended up in the ICU on a respirator for 3 weeks. Her doctors and family were certain she would die, but she miraculously survived. By the time she was extubated and less delirious from her medically induced coma, the hospital had restricted all visitors because of COVID-19.

Because I speak Spanish, we developed as decent a working relationship as we could, considering the patient’s delirium and blunted affect. On top of restarting her antipsychotics, I had to inform her that her family was no longer allowed to come visit her. Outside of this room, I vacillated on how to tell a woman with a history of paranoia that the hospital would not allow her family to visit because we were in the middle of a pandemic. A contagious virus had quickly spread around the world, cases were now spiking in the United States, much of the country was on lockdown, and the hospital was limiting visitors because asymptomatic individuals could bring the virus into the hospital or be infected by asymptomatic staff.

As the words came out of my mouth, she looked at me as I have looked at psychotic individuals as they spin me yarns of impossible explanation for their symptoms when I know they’re simply psychotic and living in an alternate reality. Imagine just waking up from a coma and your doctor coming in to tell you: “The U.S. is on lockdown because a deadly virus is spreading throughout our country.” You’d think you’ve woken up in a zombie film. Yet, the patient simply nodded and asked: “Will I be able to use the phone to call my family?” I sighed with relief and helped her dial her brother’s number.

Haven’t we all listened to insane stories while keeping a straight face and then answered with a politely bland question? Just a few months ago, I treated a homeless woman with schizophrenia who calmly explained to me that her large malignant ovarian tumor (which I could see protruding under her gown) was the unborn heir of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If she allowed the doctors to take it out (that is, treat her cancer) she’d be assassinated by the Russian intelligence agency. She refused to let the doctors sentence her to death. Ultimately, we allowed her to refuse treatment. Despite a month of treatment with antipsychotic medication, her psychotic beliefs did not change, and we could not imagine forcing her through surgery and chemotherapy. She died in hospice.

I’ve walked the valleys of bizarro land many times. Working through the dark reality of COVID-19 should be no match for us psychiatrists who have listened to dark stories and responded with words of comfort or empathic silence. As mental health clinicians, I believe we are well equipped to fight on the front lines of the pandemic of fear that has arrested our country. We can make ourselves available to our patients, friends, family, and institutions – medical or otherwise – that are grappling with how to cope with the psychological impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Posada is a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. She changed key details about the patients discussed to protect their confidentiality. Dr. Posada has no conflicts of interest.

A meme has been going around the Internet in which a Muppet is dressed as a doctor, and the caption declares: “If you don’t want to be intubated by a psychiatrist, stay home!” This meme is meant as a commentary on health care worker shortages. But it also touches on the concerns of psychiatrists who might be questioning our role in the pandemic, given that we are physicians who do not regularly rely on labs or imaging to guide treatment. And we rarely even touch our patients.

As observed by Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry, who referred to anxiety as endemic during a viral pandemic (Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19[4]:e3-5), our society is experiencing intense psychological repercussions from the pandemic. These repercussions will evolve from anxiety to despair, and for some, to resilience.

All jokes aside about the medical knowledge of psychiatrists, we are on the cutting edge of how to address the pandemic of fear and uncertainty gripping individuals and society across the nation.

Isn’t it our role as psychiatrists to help people face the reality of personal and societal crises? Aren’t we trained to help people find their internal reserves, bolster them with medications and/or psychotherapy, and prepare them to respond to challenges? I propose that our training and particular experience of hearing patients’ stories has indeed prepared us to receive surreal information and package it into a palatable, even therapeutic, form for our patients.

I’d like to present two cases I’ve recently seen during the first stages of the COVID-19 pandemic juxtaposed with patients I saw during “normal” times. These cases show that, as psychiatrists, we are prepared to face the psychological impact of this crisis.

A patient called me about worsened anxiety after she’d been sidelined at home from her job as a waitress and was currently spending 12 hours a day with her overbearing mother. She had always used her work to buffer her anxiety, as the fast pace of the restaurant kept her from ruminating.

The call reminded me of ones I’d receive from female patients during the MeToo movement and particularly during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, in which a sexual assault victim and alleged perpetrator faced off on television. During therapy and medication management sessions alike, I would talk to women struggling with the number of news stories about victims coming forward after sexual assault. They were reliving their humiliations, and despite the empowering nature of the movement, they felt vulnerable in the shadow of memories of their perpetrators.

The advice I gave then is similar to the guidance I give now, and also is closely related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice on its website on how to manage the mental health impact of COVID-19. People can be informed without suffering by taking these steps:

• Limit the amount of news and social media consumed, and if possible, try to schedule news consumption into discrete periods that are not close to bedtime or other periods meant for relaxation.
• Reach out to loved ones and friends who remind you of strength and better times.
• Make time to relax and unwind, either through resting or engaging in an activity you enjoy.
• Take care of your body and mind with exercise.
• Try for 8 hours of sleep a night (even if it doesn’t happen).
• Use techniques such as meditating, doing yoga, or breathing to practice focusing your attention somewhere.

During this crisis, tactful self-disclosure might be appropriate and therapeutic. All of our lives have been disrupted by COVID-19 and acknowledging this to patients can help them feel less isolated and vulnerable. Our patients with diagnosed psychiatric disorders will be more susceptible to crippling anxiety, exacerbations in panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, and resurgence of suicidal ideation in the face of uncertainty and despair. They may also be more likely to experience the socioeconomic fallout of this pandemic. But it’s not just these individuals who will be hit with intense feelings as we wonder what the next day, month, or 6 months hold for us, our families, our friends, our country, and our world.

Recently, I had one of the more surreal experiences of my professional life. I work as a consulation-liaison psychiatrist on the medical wards, and I was consulted to treat a young woman from Central America with schizophrenia who made a serious suicide attempt in mid-February before COVID-19 was part of the lexicon.

After an overdose, she developed aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome and ended up in the ICU on a respirator for 3 weeks. Her doctors and family were certain she would die, but she miraculously survived. By the time she was extubated and less delirious from her medically induced coma, the hospital had restricted all visitors because of COVID-19.

Because I speak Spanish, we developed as decent a working relationship as we could, considering the patient’s delirium and blunted affect. On top of restarting her antipsychotics, I had to inform her that her family was no longer allowed to come visit her. Outside of this room, I vacillated on how to tell a woman with a history of paranoia that the hospital would not allow her family to visit because we were in the middle of a pandemic. A contagious virus had quickly spread around the world, cases were now spiking in the United States, much of the country was on lockdown, and the hospital was limiting visitors because asymptomatic individuals could bring the virus into the hospital or be infected by asymptomatic staff.

As the words came out of my mouth, she looked at me as I have looked at psychotic individuals as they spin me yarns of impossible explanation for their symptoms when I know they’re simply psychotic and living in an alternate reality. Imagine just waking up from a coma and your doctor coming in to tell you: “The U.S. is on lockdown because a deadly virus is spreading throughout our country.” You’d think you’ve woken up in a zombie film. Yet, the patient simply nodded and asked: “Will I be able to use the phone to call my family?” I sighed with relief and helped her dial her brother’s number.

Haven’t we all listened to insane stories while keeping a straight face and then answered with a politely bland question? Just a few months ago, I treated a homeless woman with schizophrenia who calmly explained to me that her large malignant ovarian tumor (which I could see protruding under her gown) was the unborn heir of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If she allowed the doctors to take it out (that is, treat her cancer) she’d be assassinated by the Russian intelligence agency. She refused to let the doctors sentence her to death. Ultimately, we allowed her to refuse treatment. Despite a month of treatment with antipsychotic medication, her psychotic beliefs did not change, and we could not imagine forcing her through surgery and chemotherapy. She died in hospice.

I’ve walked the valleys of bizarro land many times. Working through the dark reality of COVID-19 should be no match for us psychiatrists who have listened to dark stories and responded with words of comfort or empathic silence. As mental health clinicians, I believe we are well equipped to fight on the front lines of the pandemic of fear that has arrested our country. We can make ourselves available to our patients, friends, family, and institutions – medical or otherwise – that are grappling with how to cope with the psychological impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Posada is a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. She changed key details about the patients discussed to protect their confidentiality. Dr. Posada has no conflicts of interest.

A meme has been going around the Internet in which a Muppet is dressed as a doctor, and the caption declares: “If you don’t want to be intubated by a psychiatrist, stay home!” This meme is meant as a commentary on health care worker shortages. But it also touches on the concerns of psychiatrists who might be questioning our role in the pandemic, given that we are physicians who do not regularly rely on labs or imaging to guide treatment. And we rarely even touch our patients.

As observed by Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry, who referred to anxiety as endemic during a viral pandemic (Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19[4]:e3-5), our society is experiencing intense psychological repercussions from the pandemic. These repercussions will evolve from anxiety to despair, and for some, to resilience.

All jokes aside about the medical knowledge of psychiatrists, we are on the cutting edge of how to address the pandemic of fear and uncertainty gripping individuals and society across the nation.

Isn’t it our role as psychiatrists to help people face the reality of personal and societal crises? Aren’t we trained to help people find their internal reserves, bolster them with medications and/or psychotherapy, and prepare them to respond to challenges? I propose that our training and particular experience of hearing patients’ stories has indeed prepared us to receive surreal information and package it into a palatable, even therapeutic, form for our patients.

I’d like to present two cases I’ve recently seen during the first stages of the COVID-19 pandemic juxtaposed with patients I saw during “normal” times. These cases show that, as psychiatrists, we are prepared to face the psychological impact of this crisis.

A patient called me about worsened anxiety after she’d been sidelined at home from her job as a waitress and was currently spending 12 hours a day with her overbearing mother. She had always used her work to buffer her anxiety, as the fast pace of the restaurant kept her from ruminating.

The call reminded me of ones I’d receive from female patients during the MeToo movement and particularly during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, in which a sexual assault victim and alleged perpetrator faced off on television. During therapy and medication management sessions alike, I would talk to women struggling with the number of news stories about victims coming forward after sexual assault. They were reliving their humiliations, and despite the empowering nature of the movement, they felt vulnerable in the shadow of memories of their perpetrators.

The advice I gave then is similar to the guidance I give now, and also is closely related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice on its website on how to manage the mental health impact of COVID-19. People can be informed without suffering by taking these steps:

• Limit the amount of news and social media consumed, and if possible, try to schedule news consumption into discrete periods that are not close to bedtime or other periods meant for relaxation.
• Reach out to loved ones and friends who remind you of strength and better times.
• Make time to relax and unwind, either through resting or engaging in an activity you enjoy.
• Take care of your body and mind with exercise.
• Try for 8 hours of sleep a night (even if it doesn’t happen).
• Use techniques such as meditating, doing yoga, or breathing to practice focusing your attention somewhere.

During this crisis, tactful self-disclosure might be appropriate and therapeutic. All of our lives have been disrupted by COVID-19 and acknowledging this to patients can help them feel less isolated and vulnerable. Our patients with diagnosed psychiatric disorders will be more susceptible to crippling anxiety, exacerbations in panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, and resurgence of suicidal ideation in the face of uncertainty and despair. They may also be more likely to experience the socioeconomic fallout of this pandemic. But it’s not just these individuals who will be hit with intense feelings as we wonder what the next day, month, or 6 months hold for us, our families, our friends, our country, and our world.

Recently, I had one of the more surreal experiences of my professional life. I work as a consulation-liaison psychiatrist on the medical wards, and I was consulted to treat a young woman from Central America with schizophrenia who made a serious suicide attempt in mid-February before COVID-19 was part of the lexicon.

After an overdose, she developed aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome and ended up in the ICU on a respirator for 3 weeks. Her doctors and family were certain she would die, but she miraculously survived. By the time she was extubated and less delirious from her medically induced coma, the hospital had restricted all visitors because of COVID-19.

Because I speak Spanish, we developed as decent a working relationship as we could, considering the patient’s delirium and blunted affect. On top of restarting her antipsychotics, I had to inform her that her family was no longer allowed to come visit her. Outside of this room, I vacillated on how to tell a woman with a history of paranoia that the hospital would not allow her family to visit because we were in the middle of a pandemic. A contagious virus had quickly spread around the world, cases were now spiking in the United States, much of the country was on lockdown, and the hospital was limiting visitors because asymptomatic individuals could bring the virus into the hospital or be infected by asymptomatic staff.

As the words came out of my mouth, she looked at me as I have looked at psychotic individuals as they spin me yarns of impossible explanation for their symptoms when I know they’re simply psychotic and living in an alternate reality. Imagine just waking up from a coma and your doctor coming in to tell you: “The U.S. is on lockdown because a deadly virus is spreading throughout our country.” You’d think you’ve woken up in a zombie film. Yet, the patient simply nodded and asked: “Will I be able to use the phone to call my family?” I sighed with relief and helped her dial her brother’s number.

Haven’t we all listened to insane stories while keeping a straight face and then answered with a politely bland question? Just a few months ago, I treated a homeless woman with schizophrenia who calmly explained to me that her large malignant ovarian tumor (which I could see protruding under her gown) was the unborn heir of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If she allowed the doctors to take it out (that is, treat her cancer) she’d be assassinated by the Russian intelligence agency. She refused to let the doctors sentence her to death. Ultimately, we allowed her to refuse treatment. Despite a month of treatment with antipsychotic medication, her psychotic beliefs did not change, and we could not imagine forcing her through surgery and chemotherapy. She died in hospice.

I’ve walked the valleys of bizarro land many times. Working through the dark reality of COVID-19 should be no match for us psychiatrists who have listened to dark stories and responded with words of comfort or empathic silence. As mental health clinicians, I believe we are well equipped to fight on the front lines of the pandemic of fear that has arrested our country. We can make ourselves available to our patients, friends, family, and institutions – medical or otherwise – that are grappling with how to cope with the psychological impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Posada is a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. She changed key details about the patients discussed to protect their confidentiality. Dr. Posada has no conflicts of interest.

The AGA Governing Board recognizes and shares the extreme uncertainty faced by the GI community regarding the rapidly evolving coronavirus situation. Priority #1 is, as always, keeping our patients and families safe, but we also would like to ensure the safety of our GI health care providers.

COVID-19 is an emerging disease and there is more to learn about its transmission, severity, and how it will take shape in the U.S. We have asked our clinical guidance experts to determine what, if any, GI-specific scientifically valid recommendations can be made. In fact, Gastroenterology has just published papers on GI symptoms and potential fecal transmission in coronavirus patients. You can see this work at www.gastrojournal.org/inpress.

Stay tuned to www.gastro.org and your email for continued updates on coronavirus, as well as information on AGA live events and DDW given the current circumstances.
 

ginews@gastro.org

The AGA Governing Board recognizes and shares the extreme uncertainty faced by the GI community regarding the rapidly evolving coronavirus situation. Priority #1 is, as always, keeping our patients and families safe, but we also would like to ensure the safety of our GI health care providers.

COVID-19 is an emerging disease and there is more to learn about its transmission, severity, and how it will take shape in the U.S. We have asked our clinical guidance experts to determine what, if any, GI-specific scientifically valid recommendations can be made. In fact, Gastroenterology has just published papers on GI symptoms and potential fecal transmission in coronavirus patients. You can see this work at www.gastrojournal.org/inpress.

Stay tuned to www.gastro.org and your email for continued updates on coronavirus, as well as information on AGA live events and DDW given the current circumstances.
 

ginews@gastro.org

The AGA Governing Board recognizes and shares the extreme uncertainty faced by the GI community regarding the rapidly evolving coronavirus situation. Priority #1 is, as always, keeping our patients and families safe, but we also would like to ensure the safety of our GI health care providers.

COVID-19 is an emerging disease and there is more to learn about its transmission, severity, and how it will take shape in the U.S. We have asked our clinical guidance experts to determine what, if any, GI-specific scientifically valid recommendations can be made. In fact, Gastroenterology has just published papers on GI symptoms and potential fecal transmission in coronavirus patients. You can see this work at www.gastrojournal.org/inpress.

Stay tuned to www.gastro.org and your email for continued updates on coronavirus, as well as information on AGA live events and DDW given the current circumstances.
 

ginews@gastro.org

The AGA Research Foundation is dedicated to supporting future leaders in GI while highlighting today’s luminaries.

Our new program, AGA Honors: Celebrating Difference Makers in Our Field, recognizes individuals who have played a pivotal role in shaping the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology and raises funds for the next generation of investigators working to advance digestive disease research and patient care.

Learn more about our honorees by visiting our website at http://foundation.gastro.org/aga-honors-celebrating/. Help us celebrate their achievements by donating to the AGA Research Foundation. Contributions are tax-deductible and will go directly to the Foundation research award endowment.
 

ginews@gastro.org

The AGA Research Foundation is dedicated to supporting future leaders in GI while highlighting today’s luminaries.

Our new program, AGA Honors: Celebrating Difference Makers in Our Field, recognizes individuals who have played a pivotal role in shaping the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology and raises funds for the next generation of investigators working to advance digestive disease research and patient care.

Learn more about our honorees by visiting our website at http://foundation.gastro.org/aga-honors-celebrating/. Help us celebrate their achievements by donating to the AGA Research Foundation. Contributions are tax-deductible and will go directly to the Foundation research award endowment.
 

ginews@gastro.org

The AGA Research Foundation is dedicated to supporting future leaders in GI while highlighting today’s luminaries.

Our new program, AGA Honors: Celebrating Difference Makers in Our Field, recognizes individuals who have played a pivotal role in shaping the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology and raises funds for the next generation of investigators working to advance digestive disease research and patient care.

Learn more about our honorees by visiting our website at http://foundation.gastro.org/aga-honors-celebrating/. Help us celebrate their achievements by donating to the AGA Research Foundation. Contributions are tax-deductible and will go directly to the Foundation research award endowment.
 

ginews@gastro.org

Up to 20% of patients in medical settings experience health anxiety.^1,2 In DSM-IV-TR, this condition was called hypochondriasis, and its core feature was having a preoccupation with fears or the idea that one has a serious disease based on a misinterpretation of ≥1 bodily signs or symptoms despite undergoing appropriate medical evaluation.³ In DSM-5, hypochondriasis was removed, and somatic symptom disorder and illness anxiety disorder were introduced.¹ Approximately 75% of patients with a previous diagnosis of hypochondriasis meet the diagnostic criteria for somatic symptom disorder, and approximately 25% meet the criteria for illness anxiety disorder.¹ In clinical practice, the less pejorative and more commonly used term for these conditions is “health anxiety.”

Patients with health anxiety can be challenging to treat because they persist in believing they have an illness despite appropriate medical evaluation. Clinicians’ responses to such patients can range from feeling the need to do more to alleviate their suffering to strongly disliking them. Although these patients can elicit negative countertransference, we should remember that their lives are being adversely affected due to the substantial functional impairment they experience from their health worries. As psychiatrists, we can help our patients with health anxiety by employing the following strategies.

Maintain constant communication with other clinicians who manage the patient’s medical complaints. A clear line of communication with other clinicians can help minimize inconsistent or conflicting messages and potentially reduce splitting. This also can allow other clinicians to air their concerns, and for you to emphasize to them that patients with health anxiety can have an actual medical disease.

Allow patients to discuss their symptoms without interrupting them. This will help them understand that you are listening to them and taking their worries seriously.² Elicit further discussion by asking them about²:

• their perception of their health
• how frequently they worry about their health
• fears about what could happen
• triggers for their worries
• how seriously they feel other clinicians regard their concerns
• behaviors they use to subdue their worries
• avoidance behaviors
• the impact their worries have on their lives.

Assess patients for the presence of comorbid mental health conditions such as anxiety disorders, mood disorders, psychotic disorders, personality disorders, and substance use disorders. Treating these conditions can help reduce your patients’ health anxiety–related distress and impairment.

Acknowledge that your patients’ symptoms are real to them and genuinely experienced.² By focusing on worry as the most important symptom and recognizing how discomforting and serious that worry can be, you can validate your patients’ feelings and increase their motivation for continuing treatment.²

Avoid reassuring patients that they are medically healthy, because any relief your patients gain from this can quickly fade, and their anxiety may worsen.² Instead, acknowledge their concerns by saying, “It’s clear that you are worried about your health. We have ways of helping this, and this will not affect any other treatment you are receiving.”² This could allow your patients to recognize that they have health anxiety without believing that their medical problems will be disregarded or dismissed.²

Explain to patients that their perceptions could be symptoms of anxiety instead of an actual medical illness, equating health anxiety to a false alarm.² Ask patients to summarize any information you present to them, because misinterpreting health information is a core feature of health anxiety.²

Up to 20% of patients in medical settings experience health anxiety.^1,2 In DSM-IV-TR, this condition was called hypochondriasis, and its core feature was having a preoccupation with fears or the idea that one has a serious disease based on a misinterpretation of ≥1 bodily signs or symptoms despite undergoing appropriate medical evaluation.³ In DSM-5, hypochondriasis was removed, and somatic symptom disorder and illness anxiety disorder were introduced.¹ Approximately 75% of patients with a previous diagnosis of hypochondriasis meet the diagnostic criteria for somatic symptom disorder, and approximately 25% meet the criteria for illness anxiety disorder.¹ In clinical practice, the less pejorative and more commonly used term for these conditions is “health anxiety.”

Patients with health anxiety can be challenging to treat because they persist in believing they have an illness despite appropriate medical evaluation. Clinicians’ responses to such patients can range from feeling the need to do more to alleviate their suffering to strongly disliking them. Although these patients can elicit negative countertransference, we should remember that their lives are being adversely affected due to the substantial functional impairment they experience from their health worries. As psychiatrists, we can help our patients with health anxiety by employing the following strategies.

Maintain constant communication with other clinicians who manage the patient’s medical complaints. A clear line of communication with other clinicians can help minimize inconsistent or conflicting messages and potentially reduce splitting. This also can allow other clinicians to air their concerns, and for you to emphasize to them that patients with health anxiety can have an actual medical disease.

Allow patients to discuss their symptoms without interrupting them. This will help them understand that you are listening to them and taking their worries seriously.² Elicit further discussion by asking them about²:

• their perception of their health
• how frequently they worry about their health
• fears about what could happen
• triggers for their worries
• how seriously they feel other clinicians regard their concerns
• behaviors they use to subdue their worries
• avoidance behaviors
• the impact their worries have on their lives.

Assess patients for the presence of comorbid mental health conditions such as anxiety disorders, mood disorders, psychotic disorders, personality disorders, and substance use disorders. Treating these conditions can help reduce your patients’ health anxiety–related distress and impairment.

Acknowledge that your patients’ symptoms are real to them and genuinely experienced.² By focusing on worry as the most important symptom and recognizing how discomforting and serious that worry can be, you can validate your patients’ feelings and increase their motivation for continuing treatment.²

Avoid reassuring patients that they are medically healthy, because any relief your patients gain from this can quickly fade, and their anxiety may worsen.² Instead, acknowledge their concerns by saying, “It’s clear that you are worried about your health. We have ways of helping this, and this will not affect any other treatment you are receiving.”² This could allow your patients to recognize that they have health anxiety without believing that their medical problems will be disregarded or dismissed.²

Explain to patients that their perceptions could be symptoms of anxiety instead of an actual medical illness, equating health anxiety to a false alarm.² Ask patients to summarize any information you present to them, because misinterpreting health information is a core feature of health anxiety.²

Up to 20% of patients in medical settings experience health anxiety.^1,2 In DSM-IV-TR, this condition was called hypochondriasis, and its core feature was having a preoccupation with fears or the idea that one has a serious disease based on a misinterpretation of ≥1 bodily signs or symptoms despite undergoing appropriate medical evaluation.³ In DSM-5, hypochondriasis was removed, and somatic symptom disorder and illness anxiety disorder were introduced.¹ Approximately 75% of patients with a previous diagnosis of hypochondriasis meet the diagnostic criteria for somatic symptom disorder, and approximately 25% meet the criteria for illness anxiety disorder.¹ In clinical practice, the less pejorative and more commonly used term for these conditions is “health anxiety.”

Patients with health anxiety can be challenging to treat because they persist in believing they have an illness despite appropriate medical evaluation. Clinicians’ responses to such patients can range from feeling the need to do more to alleviate their suffering to strongly disliking them. Although these patients can elicit negative countertransference, we should remember that their lives are being adversely affected due to the substantial functional impairment they experience from their health worries. As psychiatrists, we can help our patients with health anxiety by employing the following strategies.

Maintain constant communication with other clinicians who manage the patient’s medical complaints. A clear line of communication with other clinicians can help minimize inconsistent or conflicting messages and potentially reduce splitting. This also can allow other clinicians to air their concerns, and for you to emphasize to them that patients with health anxiety can have an actual medical disease.

Allow patients to discuss their symptoms without interrupting them. This will help them understand that you are listening to them and taking their worries seriously.² Elicit further discussion by asking them about²:

• their perception of their health
• how frequently they worry about their health
• fears about what could happen
• triggers for their worries
• how seriously they feel other clinicians regard their concerns
• behaviors they use to subdue their worries
• avoidance behaviors
• the impact their worries have on their lives.

Assess patients for the presence of comorbid mental health conditions such as anxiety disorders, mood disorders, psychotic disorders, personality disorders, and substance use disorders. Treating these conditions can help reduce your patients’ health anxiety–related distress and impairment.

Acknowledge that your patients’ symptoms are real to them and genuinely experienced.² By focusing on worry as the most important symptom and recognizing how discomforting and serious that worry can be, you can validate your patients’ feelings and increase their motivation for continuing treatment.²

Avoid reassuring patients that they are medically healthy, because any relief your patients gain from this can quickly fade, and their anxiety may worsen.² Instead, acknowledge their concerns by saying, “It’s clear that you are worried about your health. We have ways of helping this, and this will not affect any other treatment you are receiving.”² This could allow your patients to recognize that they have health anxiety without believing that their medical problems will be disregarded or dismissed.²

Explain to patients that their perceptions could be symptoms of anxiety instead of an actual medical illness, equating health anxiety to a false alarm.² Ask patients to summarize any information you present to them, because misinterpreting health information is a core feature of health anxiety.²