User login
VIDEO: Alopecia areata patients seek emotional support
SILVER SPRING, MD. – The emotional challenges facing alopecia areata patients are as tough, or tougher, than the physical challenges, according to many patients participating in a public meeting on alopecia areata patient-focused drug development.
A panel of patients shared their experiences of living with alopecia areata, including Elizabeth DeCarlo of Wilmington, Delaware. In a video interview at the meeting, held at FDA headquarters on Sept. 11, Ms. DeCarlo elaborated on what she would like clinicians to understand about alopecia patients that might surprise them, and what matters to her as a patient.
“I would tell them to be more compassionate,” Ms. DeCarlo said. “It’s very emotional.” She also emphasized the value of giving alopecia patients information about local support groups, as well as national organizations such as the National Alopecia Areata Foundation.
Ms. DeCarlo had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SILVER SPRING, MD. – The emotional challenges facing alopecia areata patients are as tough, or tougher, than the physical challenges, according to many patients participating in a public meeting on alopecia areata patient-focused drug development.
A panel of patients shared their experiences of living with alopecia areata, including Elizabeth DeCarlo of Wilmington, Delaware. In a video interview at the meeting, held at FDA headquarters on Sept. 11, Ms. DeCarlo elaborated on what she would like clinicians to understand about alopecia patients that might surprise them, and what matters to her as a patient.
“I would tell them to be more compassionate,” Ms. DeCarlo said. “It’s very emotional.” She also emphasized the value of giving alopecia patients information about local support groups, as well as national organizations such as the National Alopecia Areata Foundation.
Ms. DeCarlo had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SILVER SPRING, MD. – The emotional challenges facing alopecia areata patients are as tough, or tougher, than the physical challenges, according to many patients participating in a public meeting on alopecia areata patient-focused drug development.
A panel of patients shared their experiences of living with alopecia areata, including Elizabeth DeCarlo of Wilmington, Delaware. In a video interview at the meeting, held at FDA headquarters on Sept. 11, Ms. DeCarlo elaborated on what she would like clinicians to understand about alopecia patients that might surprise them, and what matters to her as a patient.
“I would tell them to be more compassionate,” Ms. DeCarlo said. “It’s very emotional.” She also emphasized the value of giving alopecia patients information about local support groups, as well as national organizations such as the National Alopecia Areata Foundation.
Ms. DeCarlo had no financial conflicts to disclose.
AT AN FDA PUBLIC MEETING
Study linked H2 receptor antagonists, but not PPIs, to dementia
A large prospective study of middle-aged and older women found no convincing evidence that using proton pump inhibitors increased their risk of dementia, investigators reported.
However, using H2 receptor antagonists for at least 9 years was associated with a slight decrease in scores of learning and working memory (mean decrease, –0.2; 95% confidence interval, –0.3 to –0.08; P less than .001), Paul Lochhead, MBChB, PhD, and his associates wrote in the October issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.06.061). “Since our primary hypothesis related to PPI [proton pump inhibitor] use, our findings for [H2 receptor antagonists] should be interpreted with caution,” they said.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
In a recent German study of a medical claims database, use of PPIs was associated with a 44% increase in the likelihood of incident dementia (JAMA Neurol. 2016;73:410-6). “The existence of a causal mechanism linking PPI use to dementia is suggested by observations from cellular and animal models of Alzheimer’s disease, where PPI exposure appears to influence amyloid-beta metabolism,” Dr. Lochhead and his associates wrote. “However, other preclinical data on PPIs and Alzheimer’s disease are conflicting.” Noting that cognitive function predicts dementia later in life, they analyzed prospective data on medications and other potential risk factors from 13,864 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study II who had completed Cogstate, a computerized, self-administered neuropsychological battery.
Study participants averaged 61 years old when they underwent cognitive testing, ranging in age from 50 to 70 years. Users of PPIs tended to be older, had more comorbidities, were less physically active, had higher body mass indexes, had less education, and ate a lower-quality diet than women who did not use PPIs. After adjusting for such confounders, using PPIs for 9-14 years was associated with a modest decrease in scores for psychomotor speed and attention (mean score difference, compared with never users, –0.06; 95% CI, –0.11 to 0.00; P = .03). “For comparison, in multivariable models, a 1-year increase in age was associated with mean score decreases of 0.03 for psychomotor speed and attention, 0.02 for learning and working memory, and 0.03 for overall cognition,” the researchers wrote.
Next, they examined links between use of H2 receptor antagonists and cognitive scores among 10,778 study participants who had used PPIs for 2 years or less. Use of H2 receptor antagonists for 9-14 years predicted poorer scores on learning, working memory, and overall cognition, even after controlling for potential confounders (P less than or equal to .002). “The magnitudes of mean score differences were larger than those observed in the analysis of PPI use, particularly for learning and working memory,” the researchers noted. Additionally, PPI use did not predict lower cognitive scores among individuals who had never used H2 receptor antagonists.
On the other hand, using PPIs for 9-14 years was associated with the equivalent of about 2 years of age-related cognitive decline, and controlling for exposure to H2 receptor antagonists weakened even this modest effect, the investigators said. Users and nonusers of PPIs tend to differ on many measures, and analyses of claims data, such as the German study above, are less able to account for these potential confounders, they noted. “Nonjudicious PPI prescribing is especially frequent among the elderly and those with cognitive impairment,” they added. “Therefore, elderly individuals who have frequent contact with health providers are at increased risk of both PPI prescription and dementia diagnosis. This bias may not be completely mitigated by adjustment for comorbidities or polypharmacy.”
The findings regarding H2 receptor antagonists reflect those of three smaller cohort studies, and these medications are known to cause central nervous system effects in the elderly, including delirium, the researchers said. Ranitidine and cimetidine have anticholinergic effects that also could “pose a risk for adverse cognitive effects with long-term use.”
Dr. Lochhead reported having no conflicts. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, Aralez Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Samsung Bioepis, and Takeda.
Numerous possible PPI-related adverse events have been reported within the past few years; some resultant media attention has caused anxiety for patients. Dementia is a dreaded diagnosis. Therefore, initial reports that PPI treatment might be associated with an increased risk of dementia attracted considerable media attention, much of which was unbalanced and uninformed. There is no obvious biological rationale for such an association, and the risks reported initially were of small magnitude (for example, hazard ratios of approximately 1.4). However, patients cannot reliably assess levels of risk from media coverage that often veers toward sensationalism.
The study by Lochhead et al. is a welcome contribution to the topic of PPI safety. Using the Nurses’ Health Study II database, the investigators measured cognitive function in a large group of female PPI users and nonusers. Unsurprisingly, PPI users were older and sicker than nonusers. There were quantitatively small changes in some measures of cognitive function among PPI users. However, learning and working memory scores, which are more predictive of Alzheimer’s-type cognitive decline, were unaffected by PPI use.
For those prescribers with residual concerns about any association between PPIs and dementia, these prospectively collected data on cognitive function should provide further reassurance. It is appropriate that this study should have been highlighted in GI & Hepatology News, but since it lacks the potential sensationalism of studies that report a putative association, we should not expect it to be discussed on the TV evening news anytime soon!
Colin W. Howden, MD, AGAF, is chief of gastroenterology at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He has been a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for all PPI manufacturers at some time. He is currently a consultant for Takeda, Aralez, and Pfizer Consumer Health.
Numerous possible PPI-related adverse events have been reported within the past few years; some resultant media attention has caused anxiety for patients. Dementia is a dreaded diagnosis. Therefore, initial reports that PPI treatment might be associated with an increased risk of dementia attracted considerable media attention, much of which was unbalanced and uninformed. There is no obvious biological rationale for such an association, and the risks reported initially were of small magnitude (for example, hazard ratios of approximately 1.4). However, patients cannot reliably assess levels of risk from media coverage that often veers toward sensationalism.
The study by Lochhead et al. is a welcome contribution to the topic of PPI safety. Using the Nurses’ Health Study II database, the investigators measured cognitive function in a large group of female PPI users and nonusers. Unsurprisingly, PPI users were older and sicker than nonusers. There were quantitatively small changes in some measures of cognitive function among PPI users. However, learning and working memory scores, which are more predictive of Alzheimer’s-type cognitive decline, were unaffected by PPI use.
For those prescribers with residual concerns about any association between PPIs and dementia, these prospectively collected data on cognitive function should provide further reassurance. It is appropriate that this study should have been highlighted in GI & Hepatology News, but since it lacks the potential sensationalism of studies that report a putative association, we should not expect it to be discussed on the TV evening news anytime soon!
Colin W. Howden, MD, AGAF, is chief of gastroenterology at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He has been a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for all PPI manufacturers at some time. He is currently a consultant for Takeda, Aralez, and Pfizer Consumer Health.
Numerous possible PPI-related adverse events have been reported within the past few years; some resultant media attention has caused anxiety for patients. Dementia is a dreaded diagnosis. Therefore, initial reports that PPI treatment might be associated with an increased risk of dementia attracted considerable media attention, much of which was unbalanced and uninformed. There is no obvious biological rationale for such an association, and the risks reported initially were of small magnitude (for example, hazard ratios of approximately 1.4). However, patients cannot reliably assess levels of risk from media coverage that often veers toward sensationalism.
The study by Lochhead et al. is a welcome contribution to the topic of PPI safety. Using the Nurses’ Health Study II database, the investigators measured cognitive function in a large group of female PPI users and nonusers. Unsurprisingly, PPI users were older and sicker than nonusers. There were quantitatively small changes in some measures of cognitive function among PPI users. However, learning and working memory scores, which are more predictive of Alzheimer’s-type cognitive decline, were unaffected by PPI use.
For those prescribers with residual concerns about any association between PPIs and dementia, these prospectively collected data on cognitive function should provide further reassurance. It is appropriate that this study should have been highlighted in GI & Hepatology News, but since it lacks the potential sensationalism of studies that report a putative association, we should not expect it to be discussed on the TV evening news anytime soon!
Colin W. Howden, MD, AGAF, is chief of gastroenterology at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He has been a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for all PPI manufacturers at some time. He is currently a consultant for Takeda, Aralez, and Pfizer Consumer Health.
A large prospective study of middle-aged and older women found no convincing evidence that using proton pump inhibitors increased their risk of dementia, investigators reported.
However, using H2 receptor antagonists for at least 9 years was associated with a slight decrease in scores of learning and working memory (mean decrease, –0.2; 95% confidence interval, –0.3 to –0.08; P less than .001), Paul Lochhead, MBChB, PhD, and his associates wrote in the October issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.06.061). “Since our primary hypothesis related to PPI [proton pump inhibitor] use, our findings for [H2 receptor antagonists] should be interpreted with caution,” they said.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
In a recent German study of a medical claims database, use of PPIs was associated with a 44% increase in the likelihood of incident dementia (JAMA Neurol. 2016;73:410-6). “The existence of a causal mechanism linking PPI use to dementia is suggested by observations from cellular and animal models of Alzheimer’s disease, where PPI exposure appears to influence amyloid-beta metabolism,” Dr. Lochhead and his associates wrote. “However, other preclinical data on PPIs and Alzheimer’s disease are conflicting.” Noting that cognitive function predicts dementia later in life, they analyzed prospective data on medications and other potential risk factors from 13,864 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study II who had completed Cogstate, a computerized, self-administered neuropsychological battery.
Study participants averaged 61 years old when they underwent cognitive testing, ranging in age from 50 to 70 years. Users of PPIs tended to be older, had more comorbidities, were less physically active, had higher body mass indexes, had less education, and ate a lower-quality diet than women who did not use PPIs. After adjusting for such confounders, using PPIs for 9-14 years was associated with a modest decrease in scores for psychomotor speed and attention (mean score difference, compared with never users, –0.06; 95% CI, –0.11 to 0.00; P = .03). “For comparison, in multivariable models, a 1-year increase in age was associated with mean score decreases of 0.03 for psychomotor speed and attention, 0.02 for learning and working memory, and 0.03 for overall cognition,” the researchers wrote.
Next, they examined links between use of H2 receptor antagonists and cognitive scores among 10,778 study participants who had used PPIs for 2 years or less. Use of H2 receptor antagonists for 9-14 years predicted poorer scores on learning, working memory, and overall cognition, even after controlling for potential confounders (P less than or equal to .002). “The magnitudes of mean score differences were larger than those observed in the analysis of PPI use, particularly for learning and working memory,” the researchers noted. Additionally, PPI use did not predict lower cognitive scores among individuals who had never used H2 receptor antagonists.
On the other hand, using PPIs for 9-14 years was associated with the equivalent of about 2 years of age-related cognitive decline, and controlling for exposure to H2 receptor antagonists weakened even this modest effect, the investigators said. Users and nonusers of PPIs tend to differ on many measures, and analyses of claims data, such as the German study above, are less able to account for these potential confounders, they noted. “Nonjudicious PPI prescribing is especially frequent among the elderly and those with cognitive impairment,” they added. “Therefore, elderly individuals who have frequent contact with health providers are at increased risk of both PPI prescription and dementia diagnosis. This bias may not be completely mitigated by adjustment for comorbidities or polypharmacy.”
The findings regarding H2 receptor antagonists reflect those of three smaller cohort studies, and these medications are known to cause central nervous system effects in the elderly, including delirium, the researchers said. Ranitidine and cimetidine have anticholinergic effects that also could “pose a risk for adverse cognitive effects with long-term use.”
Dr. Lochhead reported having no conflicts. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, Aralez Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Samsung Bioepis, and Takeda.
A large prospective study of middle-aged and older women found no convincing evidence that using proton pump inhibitors increased their risk of dementia, investigators reported.
However, using H2 receptor antagonists for at least 9 years was associated with a slight decrease in scores of learning and working memory (mean decrease, –0.2; 95% confidence interval, –0.3 to –0.08; P less than .001), Paul Lochhead, MBChB, PhD, and his associates wrote in the October issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.06.061). “Since our primary hypothesis related to PPI [proton pump inhibitor] use, our findings for [H2 receptor antagonists] should be interpreted with caution,” they said.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
In a recent German study of a medical claims database, use of PPIs was associated with a 44% increase in the likelihood of incident dementia (JAMA Neurol. 2016;73:410-6). “The existence of a causal mechanism linking PPI use to dementia is suggested by observations from cellular and animal models of Alzheimer’s disease, where PPI exposure appears to influence amyloid-beta metabolism,” Dr. Lochhead and his associates wrote. “However, other preclinical data on PPIs and Alzheimer’s disease are conflicting.” Noting that cognitive function predicts dementia later in life, they analyzed prospective data on medications and other potential risk factors from 13,864 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study II who had completed Cogstate, a computerized, self-administered neuropsychological battery.
Study participants averaged 61 years old when they underwent cognitive testing, ranging in age from 50 to 70 years. Users of PPIs tended to be older, had more comorbidities, were less physically active, had higher body mass indexes, had less education, and ate a lower-quality diet than women who did not use PPIs. After adjusting for such confounders, using PPIs for 9-14 years was associated with a modest decrease in scores for psychomotor speed and attention (mean score difference, compared with never users, –0.06; 95% CI, –0.11 to 0.00; P = .03). “For comparison, in multivariable models, a 1-year increase in age was associated with mean score decreases of 0.03 for psychomotor speed and attention, 0.02 for learning and working memory, and 0.03 for overall cognition,” the researchers wrote.
Next, they examined links between use of H2 receptor antagonists and cognitive scores among 10,778 study participants who had used PPIs for 2 years or less. Use of H2 receptor antagonists for 9-14 years predicted poorer scores on learning, working memory, and overall cognition, even after controlling for potential confounders (P less than or equal to .002). “The magnitudes of mean score differences were larger than those observed in the analysis of PPI use, particularly for learning and working memory,” the researchers noted. Additionally, PPI use did not predict lower cognitive scores among individuals who had never used H2 receptor antagonists.
On the other hand, using PPIs for 9-14 years was associated with the equivalent of about 2 years of age-related cognitive decline, and controlling for exposure to H2 receptor antagonists weakened even this modest effect, the investigators said. Users and nonusers of PPIs tend to differ on many measures, and analyses of claims data, such as the German study above, are less able to account for these potential confounders, they noted. “Nonjudicious PPI prescribing is especially frequent among the elderly and those with cognitive impairment,” they added. “Therefore, elderly individuals who have frequent contact with health providers are at increased risk of both PPI prescription and dementia diagnosis. This bias may not be completely mitigated by adjustment for comorbidities or polypharmacy.”
The findings regarding H2 receptor antagonists reflect those of three smaller cohort studies, and these medications are known to cause central nervous system effects in the elderly, including delirium, the researchers said. Ranitidine and cimetidine have anticholinergic effects that also could “pose a risk for adverse cognitive effects with long-term use.”
Dr. Lochhead reported having no conflicts. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, Aralez Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Samsung Bioepis, and Takeda.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Key clinical point: A large prospective cohort study linked long-term use of H2 receptor antagonists, but not PPIs, to dementia.
Major finding: Use of PPIs did not significantly predict incident dementia in the adjusted analysis. However, using H2 receptor antagonists for at least 9 years was associated with a slight decrease in scores of learning and working memory (mean decrease, –0.2; P less than .001).
Data source: A population-based cohort study of 13,864 middle-aged and older women.
Disclosures: Dr. Lochhead reported having no conflicts. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, Aralez Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Samsung Bioepis, and Takeda.
Statin use cuts risks in compensated cirrhosis
For patients with compensated cirrhosis, statin therapy was associated with about a 46% decrease in the risk of hepatic decompensation and mortality and with a 27% drop in the risk of portal hypertension and variceal bleeding, according to moderate-quality evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies.
Low-quality data also suggested that statins might help protect against the progression of noncirrhotic chronic liver disease, said Rebecca G. Kim of the University of California at San Diego and her associates. “Large, pragmatic randomized controlled trials in patients with compensated cirrhosis are required to confirm these observations,” they wrote in the October issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.04.039).
Prior studies have reported mixed findings on how statin therapy affects chronic liver disease. For their review, Ms. Kim and her associates searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database and Systematic Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed for randomized controlled trials or cohort studies published through March 25, 2017. They identified 10 cohort studies and three randomized controlled trials of adults with fibrosis without cirrhosis, compensated cirrhosis, or decompensated cirrhosis that evaluated statin exposure and reported associations between exposure and outcomes related to cirrhosis. They excluded case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and studies that focused only on the relationship between statin use and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma.
The resulting data set included 121,058 patients with chronic liver diseases, of whom 85% had chronic hepatitis C virus infection. A total of 46% of patients were exposed to statins, which appeared to reduce their risk of hepatic decompensation, variceal bleeding, and mortality. Among 87 such patients in five studies, statin use was associated with a 46% decrease in the risk of hepatic decompensation and death, with risk ratios of 0.54 (95% confidence intervals, 0.46-0.62 and 0.47-0.61, respectively). Statin use also was associated with a 27% lower risk of variceal bleeding or progression of portal hypertension, based on an analysis of 110 events in 236 patients from three trials (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91). Finally, statin use also was associated with a 58% lower risk of fibrosis progression or cirrhosis in patients with noncirrhotic chronic liver disease, but the 95% CIs for the risk estimate did not reach statistical significance (0.16-1.11).
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
Most studies lacked data on dose and duration of statin exposure, the researchers said. However, four cohort studies reported dose-dependent effects that were most pronounced after more than a year of treatment. “Similarly, several different types of statins were studied, and observed effects were assumed to be class-specific effects,” the reviewers wrote. “However, it is possible that lipophilic and lipophobic statins may have differential efficacy in decreasing fibrosis progression.”
Together, these findings support prior studies suggesting that statin therapy is safe and can potentially reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in this patient population, they concluded. Statins “may potentially improve patient-relevant outcomes in patients with chronic liver diseases and improve survival without significant additional costs.”
The reviewers acknowledged the American Gastroenterological Association Foundation, a T. Franklin Williams Scholarship Award, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Library of Medicine. They reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
This story was updated on 9/13/2017.
The main mechanism in the development of cirrhosis in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) is increased hepatic fibrogenesis. The initial consequence of cirrhosis is portal hypertension, which is the main driver of decompensation (defined as the presence of ascites, variceal hemorrhage, or encephalopathy). 
Statins are widely used for reducing cholesterol levels and cardiovascular risk. However, statins ameliorate endothelial dysfunction and have additional antifibrotic, anti-inflammatory, and antithrombotic properties, all of them of potential benefit in preventing progression of CLD/cirrhosis. In fact, statins have been shown to reduce portal pressure in cirrhosis.
In a meta-analysis of 13 studies, Kim et al. demonstrated that statin use is associated with a 58% lower risk of developing cirrhosis/fibrosis progression in patients with CLD (not statistically significant), while in patients with compensated cirrhosis of any etiology, statin use was associated with a statistically significant 46% lower risk of developing decompensation and death.
Most studies in the meta-analysis were observational/retrospective. Although the authors jointly analyzed three randomized controlled trials, only one of the trials looked at clinical outcomes. This important double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with recent variceal hemorrhage showed a significantly lower mortality in patients randomized to simvastatin.
Therefore, although the evidence is not yet sufficient to recommend the widespread use of statins in patients with CLD/cirrhosis, providers should not avoid using statins in patients with CLD/cirrhosis who otherwise need them. In fact, they should actively look for indications that would justify their use.
Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, MD, is professor of medicine at Yale University, chief of digestive diseases at the VA-CT Healthcare System, and director of the clinical core of the Yale Liver Center, New Haven, Conn. She had no conflicts of interest.
The main mechanism in the development of cirrhosis in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) is increased hepatic fibrogenesis. The initial consequence of cirrhosis is portal hypertension, which is the main driver of decompensation (defined as the presence of ascites, variceal hemorrhage, or encephalopathy).
Statins are widely used for reducing cholesterol levels and cardiovascular risk. However, statins ameliorate endothelial dysfunction and have additional antifibrotic, anti-inflammatory, and antithrombotic properties, all of them of potential benefit in preventing progression of CLD/cirrhosis. In fact, statins have been shown to reduce portal pressure in cirrhosis.
In a meta-analysis of 13 studies, Kim et al. demonstrated that statin use is associated with a 58% lower risk of developing cirrhosis/fibrosis progression in patients with CLD (not statistically significant), while in patients with compensated cirrhosis of any etiology, statin use was associated with a statistically significant 46% lower risk of developing decompensation and death.
Most studies in the meta-analysis were observational/retrospective. Although the authors jointly analyzed three randomized controlled trials, only one of the trials looked at clinical outcomes. This important double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with recent variceal hemorrhage showed a significantly lower mortality in patients randomized to simvastatin.
Therefore, although the evidence is not yet sufficient to recommend the widespread use of statins in patients with CLD/cirrhosis, providers should not avoid using statins in patients with CLD/cirrhosis who otherwise need them. In fact, they should actively look for indications that would justify their use.
Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, MD, is professor of medicine at Yale University, chief of digestive diseases at the VA-CT Healthcare System, and director of the clinical core of the Yale Liver Center, New Haven, Conn. She had no conflicts of interest.
The main mechanism in the development of cirrhosis in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) is increased hepatic fibrogenesis. The initial consequence of cirrhosis is portal hypertension, which is the main driver of decompensation (defined as the presence of ascites, variceal hemorrhage, or encephalopathy).
Statins are widely used for reducing cholesterol levels and cardiovascular risk. However, statins ameliorate endothelial dysfunction and have additional antifibrotic, anti-inflammatory, and antithrombotic properties, all of them of potential benefit in preventing progression of CLD/cirrhosis. In fact, statins have been shown to reduce portal pressure in cirrhosis.
In a meta-analysis of 13 studies, Kim et al. demonstrated that statin use is associated with a 58% lower risk of developing cirrhosis/fibrosis progression in patients with CLD (not statistically significant), while in patients with compensated cirrhosis of any etiology, statin use was associated with a statistically significant 46% lower risk of developing decompensation and death.
Most studies in the meta-analysis were observational/retrospective. Although the authors jointly analyzed three randomized controlled trials, only one of the trials looked at clinical outcomes. This important double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with recent variceal hemorrhage showed a significantly lower mortality in patients randomized to simvastatin.
Therefore, although the evidence is not yet sufficient to recommend the widespread use of statins in patients with CLD/cirrhosis, providers should not avoid using statins in patients with CLD/cirrhosis who otherwise need them. In fact, they should actively look for indications that would justify their use.
Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, MD, is professor of medicine at Yale University, chief of digestive diseases at the VA-CT Healthcare System, and director of the clinical core of the Yale Liver Center, New Haven, Conn. She had no conflicts of interest.
For patients with compensated cirrhosis, statin therapy was associated with about a 46% decrease in the risk of hepatic decompensation and mortality and with a 27% drop in the risk of portal hypertension and variceal bleeding, according to moderate-quality evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies.
Low-quality data also suggested that statins might help protect against the progression of noncirrhotic chronic liver disease, said Rebecca G. Kim of the University of California at San Diego and her associates. “Large, pragmatic randomized controlled trials in patients with compensated cirrhosis are required to confirm these observations,” they wrote in the October issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.04.039).
Prior studies have reported mixed findings on how statin therapy affects chronic liver disease. For their review, Ms. Kim and her associates searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database and Systematic Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed for randomized controlled trials or cohort studies published through March 25, 2017. They identified 10 cohort studies and three randomized controlled trials of adults with fibrosis without cirrhosis, compensated cirrhosis, or decompensated cirrhosis that evaluated statin exposure and reported associations between exposure and outcomes related to cirrhosis. They excluded case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and studies that focused only on the relationship between statin use and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma.
The resulting data set included 121,058 patients with chronic liver diseases, of whom 85% had chronic hepatitis C virus infection. A total of 46% of patients were exposed to statins, which appeared to reduce their risk of hepatic decompensation, variceal bleeding, and mortality. Among 87 such patients in five studies, statin use was associated with a 46% decrease in the risk of hepatic decompensation and death, with risk ratios of 0.54 (95% confidence intervals, 0.46-0.62 and 0.47-0.61, respectively). Statin use also was associated with a 27% lower risk of variceal bleeding or progression of portal hypertension, based on an analysis of 110 events in 236 patients from three trials (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91). Finally, statin use also was associated with a 58% lower risk of fibrosis progression or cirrhosis in patients with noncirrhotic chronic liver disease, but the 95% CIs for the risk estimate did not reach statistical significance (0.16-1.11).
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
Most studies lacked data on dose and duration of statin exposure, the researchers said. However, four cohort studies reported dose-dependent effects that were most pronounced after more than a year of treatment. “Similarly, several different types of statins were studied, and observed effects were assumed to be class-specific effects,” the reviewers wrote. “However, it is possible that lipophilic and lipophobic statins may have differential efficacy in decreasing fibrosis progression.”
Together, these findings support prior studies suggesting that statin therapy is safe and can potentially reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in this patient population, they concluded. Statins “may potentially improve patient-relevant outcomes in patients with chronic liver diseases and improve survival without significant additional costs.”
The reviewers acknowledged the American Gastroenterological Association Foundation, a T. Franklin Williams Scholarship Award, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Library of Medicine. They reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
This story was updated on 9/13/2017.
For patients with compensated cirrhosis, statin therapy was associated with about a 46% decrease in the risk of hepatic decompensation and mortality and with a 27% drop in the risk of portal hypertension and variceal bleeding, according to moderate-quality evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies.
Low-quality data also suggested that statins might help protect against the progression of noncirrhotic chronic liver disease, said Rebecca G. Kim of the University of California at San Diego and her associates. “Large, pragmatic randomized controlled trials in patients with compensated cirrhosis are required to confirm these observations,” they wrote in the October issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.04.039).
Prior studies have reported mixed findings on how statin therapy affects chronic liver disease. For their review, Ms. Kim and her associates searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database and Systematic Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed for randomized controlled trials or cohort studies published through March 25, 2017. They identified 10 cohort studies and three randomized controlled trials of adults with fibrosis without cirrhosis, compensated cirrhosis, or decompensated cirrhosis that evaluated statin exposure and reported associations between exposure and outcomes related to cirrhosis. They excluded case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and studies that focused only on the relationship between statin use and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma.
The resulting data set included 121,058 patients with chronic liver diseases, of whom 85% had chronic hepatitis C virus infection. A total of 46% of patients were exposed to statins, which appeared to reduce their risk of hepatic decompensation, variceal bleeding, and mortality. Among 87 such patients in five studies, statin use was associated with a 46% decrease in the risk of hepatic decompensation and death, with risk ratios of 0.54 (95% confidence intervals, 0.46-0.62 and 0.47-0.61, respectively). Statin use also was associated with a 27% lower risk of variceal bleeding or progression of portal hypertension, based on an analysis of 110 events in 236 patients from three trials (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91). Finally, statin use also was associated with a 58% lower risk of fibrosis progression or cirrhosis in patients with noncirrhotic chronic liver disease, but the 95% CIs for the risk estimate did not reach statistical significance (0.16-1.11).
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
Most studies lacked data on dose and duration of statin exposure, the researchers said. However, four cohort studies reported dose-dependent effects that were most pronounced after more than a year of treatment. “Similarly, several different types of statins were studied, and observed effects were assumed to be class-specific effects,” the reviewers wrote. “However, it is possible that lipophilic and lipophobic statins may have differential efficacy in decreasing fibrosis progression.”
Together, these findings support prior studies suggesting that statin therapy is safe and can potentially reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in this patient population, they concluded. Statins “may potentially improve patient-relevant outcomes in patients with chronic liver diseases and improve survival without significant additional costs.”
The reviewers acknowledged the American Gastroenterological Association Foundation, a T. Franklin Williams Scholarship Award, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Library of Medicine. They reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
This story was updated on 9/13/2017.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Key clinical point: Statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of hepatic decompensation and death in patients with compensated cirrhosis.
Major finding: Statin therapy was associated with a 46% decrease in the risk of both hepatic decompensation and mortality (risk ratios, 0.54) and with a 27% drop in the risk of portal hypertension and variceal bleeding (RR, 0.73).
Data source: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 cohort studies and three randomized controlled trials (121,058 patients).
Disclosures: The reviewers acknowledged the American Gastroenterological Association Foundation, a T. Franklin Williams Scholarship Award, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Library of Medicine. They reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
Anxiety disorders in children and adolescents
VIDEO: Clopidogrel bests ticagrelor in PCI for ACS in real-world study
BARCELONA – Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome using newer-generation drug-eluting stents backed by ticagrelor-based dual-antiplatelet therapy had significantly higher net adverse event rates at 1 year than did those with clopidogrel-based DAPT in the CHANGE DAPT study, Clemens von Birgelen, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Based upon the CHANGE DAPT findings and those from other recent studies, it would be appropriate to revise ESC and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, which now give the newer, more potent platelet inhibitors ticagrelor (Brilinta) or prasugrel (Effient) preferential status as the P2Y12 inhibitor of choice over clopidogrel, added Dr. von Birgelen, professor of cardiology at the University of Twente in Enschede, the Netherlands, and codirector of the department of cardiology at Thoraxcentrum Twente.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
“With the newer drug-eluting stents we see lower ischemic event rates, so the DAPT side effects due to bleeding become more important at this time. It could be that patients with ACS who are undergoing PCI may no longer need the most potent DAPT. Perhaps less potent DAPT with clopidogrel may be sufficient when using these more modern devices,” Dr. von Birgelen said in an interview.
CHANGE DAPT was a prospective, observational registry study that compared 1-year clinical outcomes in 2,062 consecutive ACS patients treated by PCI at Thoraxcentrum Twente, a high-volume PCI center. Half of the patients were treated before the primary DAPT regimen in the region changed from clopidogrel-based to ticagrelor-based DAPT on May 1, 2014, while the other half underwent PCI after the switch. This unique registry study design avoids selection bias, whereby cardiologists might preferentially use clopidogrel – the less potent P2Y12 inhibitor – in frailer patients.
The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, any MI, stroke, or major bleeding. The rate was 7.8% in the ticagrelor period and significantly lower at 5.1% in the clopidogrel period. This difference was driven by the significantly lower major bleeding rate in the clopidogrel group: 1.2% versus 2.7% with ticagrelor-based DAPT.
The increased risk of bleeding associated with ticagrelor wasn’t offset by any advantage in term of ischemic events; indeed, the rate of such events was actually numerically lower with clopidogrel-based DAPT, albeit not statistically significantly so. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 0.6% of the clopidogrel group and 0.8% of the ticagrelor group, while the composite of cardiac death, MI, or stroke occurred in 3.7% of patients on clopidogrel-based DAPT compared with 4.7% on ticagrelor.
The two patient groups were closely similar at baseline in most respects, although the ticagrelor group was, on average, 1 year older, reflecting the more recent increased willingness of interventional cardiologists to utilize PCI in patients of advanced age. In terms of procedural differences, the ticagrelor group was more likely to undergo a transradial rather than transfemoral approach, less likely to receive a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, and more likely to get a proton pump inhibitor.
“All three of those factors should have reduced the bleeding risk during that second period,” Dr. von Birgelen observed.
In a propensity score–adjusted analysis taking account of the few between-group differences, ticagrelor-based DAPT was associated with a 1.75-fold increased risk of the primary endpoint and a 2.75-fold increased risk of major bleeding.
He noted that the CHANGE DAPT results are consistent with those of TOPIC, a 646-patient, single-center randomized trial conducted in Marseille. In TOPIC, after 1 month on ticagrelor- or prasugrel-backed DAPT, half of patients were switched to vastly less expensive clopidogrel for the remaining 11 months of DAPT. The result in the switched group was a marked decrease in bleeding with no increased risk of ischemic events.
“I see our study as a piece in a mosaic of studies and real-world registries with a similar message that have recently been reported,” the cardiologist said. “I hope the ESC looks carefully at these data.”
Session cochair Laura Mauri, MD, said that while it’s important to look at real-world observational data such as CHANGE DAPT to see if the results of randomized trials are generalizable, she’s not surprised by the evidence of increased risk of bleeding with a more potent agent such as ticagrelor.
“Why there’s a lack of benefit demonstrated, I think, is the bigger question,” said Dr. Mauri, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “It could be related to changes in procedures over time, with procedures being conducted in a more complex manner, or some other residual confounding. I think whenever we see an observational study that changes the nature of the benefit that we see, it needs to be investigated more deeply. I don’t think it’s time to dismiss the results of very large randomized trials that show a meaningful benefit for the potent agents in the setting of ACS.”
CHANGE DAPT was an investigator-initiated study conducted without external funding. Dr. von Birgelen reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
BARCELONA – Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome using newer-generation drug-eluting stents backed by ticagrelor-based dual-antiplatelet therapy had significantly higher net adverse event rates at 1 year than did those with clopidogrel-based DAPT in the CHANGE DAPT study, Clemens von Birgelen, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Based upon the CHANGE DAPT findings and those from other recent studies, it would be appropriate to revise ESC and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, which now give the newer, more potent platelet inhibitors ticagrelor (Brilinta) or prasugrel (Effient) preferential status as the P2Y12 inhibitor of choice over clopidogrel, added Dr. von Birgelen, professor of cardiology at the University of Twente in Enschede, the Netherlands, and codirector of the department of cardiology at Thoraxcentrum Twente.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
“With the newer drug-eluting stents we see lower ischemic event rates, so the DAPT side effects due to bleeding become more important at this time. It could be that patients with ACS who are undergoing PCI may no longer need the most potent DAPT. Perhaps less potent DAPT with clopidogrel may be sufficient when using these more modern devices,” Dr. von Birgelen said in an interview.
CHANGE DAPT was a prospective, observational registry study that compared 1-year clinical outcomes in 2,062 consecutive ACS patients treated by PCI at Thoraxcentrum Twente, a high-volume PCI center. Half of the patients were treated before the primary DAPT regimen in the region changed from clopidogrel-based to ticagrelor-based DAPT on May 1, 2014, while the other half underwent PCI after the switch. This unique registry study design avoids selection bias, whereby cardiologists might preferentially use clopidogrel – the less potent P2Y12 inhibitor – in frailer patients.
The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, any MI, stroke, or major bleeding. The rate was 7.8% in the ticagrelor period and significantly lower at 5.1% in the clopidogrel period. This difference was driven by the significantly lower major bleeding rate in the clopidogrel group: 1.2% versus 2.7% with ticagrelor-based DAPT.
The increased risk of bleeding associated with ticagrelor wasn’t offset by any advantage in term of ischemic events; indeed, the rate of such events was actually numerically lower with clopidogrel-based DAPT, albeit not statistically significantly so. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 0.6% of the clopidogrel group and 0.8% of the ticagrelor group, while the composite of cardiac death, MI, or stroke occurred in 3.7% of patients on clopidogrel-based DAPT compared with 4.7% on ticagrelor.
The two patient groups were closely similar at baseline in most respects, although the ticagrelor group was, on average, 1 year older, reflecting the more recent increased willingness of interventional cardiologists to utilize PCI in patients of advanced age. In terms of procedural differences, the ticagrelor group was more likely to undergo a transradial rather than transfemoral approach, less likely to receive a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, and more likely to get a proton pump inhibitor.
“All three of those factors should have reduced the bleeding risk during that second period,” Dr. von Birgelen observed.
In a propensity score–adjusted analysis taking account of the few between-group differences, ticagrelor-based DAPT was associated with a 1.75-fold increased risk of the primary endpoint and a 2.75-fold increased risk of major bleeding.
He noted that the CHANGE DAPT results are consistent with those of TOPIC, a 646-patient, single-center randomized trial conducted in Marseille. In TOPIC, after 1 month on ticagrelor- or prasugrel-backed DAPT, half of patients were switched to vastly less expensive clopidogrel for the remaining 11 months of DAPT. The result in the switched group was a marked decrease in bleeding with no increased risk of ischemic events.
“I see our study as a piece in a mosaic of studies and real-world registries with a similar message that have recently been reported,” the cardiologist said. “I hope the ESC looks carefully at these data.”
Session cochair Laura Mauri, MD, said that while it’s important to look at real-world observational data such as CHANGE DAPT to see if the results of randomized trials are generalizable, she’s not surprised by the evidence of increased risk of bleeding with a more potent agent such as ticagrelor.
“Why there’s a lack of benefit demonstrated, I think, is the bigger question,” said Dr. Mauri, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “It could be related to changes in procedures over time, with procedures being conducted in a more complex manner, or some other residual confounding. I think whenever we see an observational study that changes the nature of the benefit that we see, it needs to be investigated more deeply. I don’t think it’s time to dismiss the results of very large randomized trials that show a meaningful benefit for the potent agents in the setting of ACS.”
CHANGE DAPT was an investigator-initiated study conducted without external funding. Dr. von Birgelen reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
BARCELONA – Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome using newer-generation drug-eluting stents backed by ticagrelor-based dual-antiplatelet therapy had significantly higher net adverse event rates at 1 year than did those with clopidogrel-based DAPT in the CHANGE DAPT study, Clemens von Birgelen, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Based upon the CHANGE DAPT findings and those from other recent studies, it would be appropriate to revise ESC and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, which now give the newer, more potent platelet inhibitors ticagrelor (Brilinta) or prasugrel (Effient) preferential status as the P2Y12 inhibitor of choice over clopidogrel, added Dr. von Birgelen, professor of cardiology at the University of Twente in Enschede, the Netherlands, and codirector of the department of cardiology at Thoraxcentrum Twente.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
“With the newer drug-eluting stents we see lower ischemic event rates, so the DAPT side effects due to bleeding become more important at this time. It could be that patients with ACS who are undergoing PCI may no longer need the most potent DAPT. Perhaps less potent DAPT with clopidogrel may be sufficient when using these more modern devices,” Dr. von Birgelen said in an interview.
CHANGE DAPT was a prospective, observational registry study that compared 1-year clinical outcomes in 2,062 consecutive ACS patients treated by PCI at Thoraxcentrum Twente, a high-volume PCI center. Half of the patients were treated before the primary DAPT regimen in the region changed from clopidogrel-based to ticagrelor-based DAPT on May 1, 2014, while the other half underwent PCI after the switch. This unique registry study design avoids selection bias, whereby cardiologists might preferentially use clopidogrel – the less potent P2Y12 inhibitor – in frailer patients.
The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, any MI, stroke, or major bleeding. The rate was 7.8% in the ticagrelor period and significantly lower at 5.1% in the clopidogrel period. This difference was driven by the significantly lower major bleeding rate in the clopidogrel group: 1.2% versus 2.7% with ticagrelor-based DAPT.
The increased risk of bleeding associated with ticagrelor wasn’t offset by any advantage in term of ischemic events; indeed, the rate of such events was actually numerically lower with clopidogrel-based DAPT, albeit not statistically significantly so. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 0.6% of the clopidogrel group and 0.8% of the ticagrelor group, while the composite of cardiac death, MI, or stroke occurred in 3.7% of patients on clopidogrel-based DAPT compared with 4.7% on ticagrelor.
The two patient groups were closely similar at baseline in most respects, although the ticagrelor group was, on average, 1 year older, reflecting the more recent increased willingness of interventional cardiologists to utilize PCI in patients of advanced age. In terms of procedural differences, the ticagrelor group was more likely to undergo a transradial rather than transfemoral approach, less likely to receive a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, and more likely to get a proton pump inhibitor.
“All three of those factors should have reduced the bleeding risk during that second period,” Dr. von Birgelen observed.
In a propensity score–adjusted analysis taking account of the few between-group differences, ticagrelor-based DAPT was associated with a 1.75-fold increased risk of the primary endpoint and a 2.75-fold increased risk of major bleeding.
He noted that the CHANGE DAPT results are consistent with those of TOPIC, a 646-patient, single-center randomized trial conducted in Marseille. In TOPIC, after 1 month on ticagrelor- or prasugrel-backed DAPT, half of patients were switched to vastly less expensive clopidogrel for the remaining 11 months of DAPT. The result in the switched group was a marked decrease in bleeding with no increased risk of ischemic events.
“I see our study as a piece in a mosaic of studies and real-world registries with a similar message that have recently been reported,” the cardiologist said. “I hope the ESC looks carefully at these data.”
Session cochair Laura Mauri, MD, said that while it’s important to look at real-world observational data such as CHANGE DAPT to see if the results of randomized trials are generalizable, she’s not surprised by the evidence of increased risk of bleeding with a more potent agent such as ticagrelor.
“Why there’s a lack of benefit demonstrated, I think, is the bigger question,” said Dr. Mauri, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “It could be related to changes in procedures over time, with procedures being conducted in a more complex manner, or some other residual confounding. I think whenever we see an observational study that changes the nature of the benefit that we see, it needs to be investigated more deeply. I don’t think it’s time to dismiss the results of very large randomized trials that show a meaningful benefit for the potent agents in the setting of ACS.”
CHANGE DAPT was an investigator-initiated study conducted without external funding. Dr. von Birgelen reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
AT THE ESC CONGRESS 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The 1-year composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, or major bleeding occurred in 5.1% of ACS patients who underwent PCI using newer-generation drug-eluting stents followed by clopidogrel-based DAPT, compared with 7.8% who received ticagrelor-based DAPT.
Data source: This unique design for a prospective observational registry study compared 1-year outcomes in 2,062 consecutive ACS patients who underwent PCI at a single high-volume center, half before a regional switch from clopidogrel- to ticagrelor-based DAPT and half afterward.
Disclosures: CHANGE DAPT was an investigator-initiated study conducted without external funding. The presenter reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
VIDEO: Prescription-strength ibuprofen worsens blood pressure more than other NSAIDs
BARCELONA – Prescription-strength ibuprofen has a bigger adverse effect on blood pressure than celecoxib or naproxen, a finding that suggests a likely mechanism for the worse cardiovascular event rate documented in ibuprofen-treated arthritis patients in the PRECISION trial, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“Prescription-strength ibuprofen is under pressure – it has a high incidence of new-onset hypertension, particularly when compared to the more selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib. Before we did this study, many would have said it’s the other way around,” observed Dr. Ruschitzka, professor of cardiology at the University of Zurich.
He presented the results of PRECISION-ABPM (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement).
“These results will have impact on your daily practice when you go home,” the cardiologist promised.
PRECISION-ABPM was a prespecified double-blind, randomized, 60-center substudy of the published PRECISION trial, which included 24,081 U.S. patients who needed daily NSAIDs for arthritis and were also at increased cardiovascular risk. They were randomized to the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib at 100-200 mg b.i.d. or the nonselective NSAIDs ibuprofen at 600-800 mg three times a day or naproxen at 375-500 mg twice daily. Participants also received a proton pump inhibitor to protect against NSAID-related GI bleeding. In the on-treatment analysis, the ibuprofen group was significantly more likely to experience cardiovascular and all-cause mortality and renal events than were those on celecoxib (N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 29;375[26]:2519-29).
The PRECISION-ABPM substudy included 444 arthritis patients, 92% of whom had osteoarthritis. During the 4-month study, investigators amassed roughly 60,000 automated blood pressure measurements across the three study arms.
The primary outcome was change from baseline in mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure (SBP). It increased by 3.7 mm Hg in the ibuprofen group and declined by 0.3 mm Hg in the celecoxib group, while the naproxen group occupied the middle ground with a 1.6-mm Hg increase.
The nearly 4-mm Hg increase in mean 24-hour SBP at 4 months in the ibuprofen group is of sufficient magnitude to be clinically important, Dr. Ruschitzka noted. He noted that fully 23.2% of ibuprofen-treated patients who had normal baseline blood pressure developed hypertension as defined by a mean 24-hour SBP of at least 130 and/or a diastolic blood pressure of at least 80 mm Hg. In contrast, incident hypertension occurred in only 10.3% of the celecoxib group and 19% of naproxen-treated patients. Thus, the likelihood of developing hypertension was 61% less with celecoxib than ibuprofen and 51% less with celecoxib than naproxen.
Not treating chronic arthritic pain to avoid the cardiovascular risk of NSAIDs is not a legitimate option.
“Pain is a cardiovascular risk factor,” Dr. Ruschitzka emphasized. “It’s unethical not to treat it. If you don’t treat pain, the patient’s blood pressure goes up, heart rate goes up, and you’re driving patients into inactivity.”
Although he’s convinced there’s no such thing as a safe NSAID from a cardiovascular risk standpoint, the PRECISION and PRECISION-ABPM data show celecoxib is less unsafe than ibuprofen. And as for the oft-heard statement that naproxen is the safest NSAID for the heart, Dr. Ruschitzka snorted, “What an urban legend.”
Discussant Scott Solomon, MD, opined that, while PRECISION-ABPM doesn’t support the notion that conventional NSAIDs such as naproxen or ibuprofen are any safer than celecoxib, it would be wrong to conclude from the study that celecoxib doesn’t affect blood pressure and is safer than the others from a cardiovascular standpoint. That’s because the three study drugs weren’t compared in an equipotent way. Because of safety concerns, the Food and Drug Administration required that the daily dose of celecoxib be capped at the low end of the therapeutic range, while no such constraints were placed on the two nonselective NSAIDS.
“Compared to placebo, all NSAIDs likely raise blood pressure, especially in patients prone to hypertension, those with chronic kidney disease, the elderly – and this is exactly the type of patients who require NSAIDs for arthritis. Whichever NSAID is chosen, clinicians should be aware of this effect and treat hypertension according to guidelines,” said Dr. Solomon, director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.
Dr. Solomon has been a key figure in the COX-2 inhibitor controversy of the last decade. He was lead author of a 2005 review of data from clinical trials of COX-2 inhibitors for colorectal adenoma prevention, which concluded that the drugs had a cardiovascular safety issue in that setting (N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 17;352[11]:1071-80).
“Our analysis of celecoxib concluded that a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular events was there, was real, but notably occurred at doses which were substantially higher than what we typically use for patients with arthritis,” he said.
That report triggered a fevered reaction.
“Amid an enormous amount of hype, hyperbole, and hysteria, the safety of these agents was thrown into question, leading to the withdrawal of all but one of them from the market and a black-box warning around the one remaining agent, celecoxib,” he recalled.
Dr. Ruschitzka discussed his findings in a video interview.
PRECISION-ABPM was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Ruschitzka and Dr. Solomon reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding their presentations.
BARCELONA – Prescription-strength ibuprofen has a bigger adverse effect on blood pressure than celecoxib or naproxen, a finding that suggests a likely mechanism for the worse cardiovascular event rate documented in ibuprofen-treated arthritis patients in the PRECISION trial, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“Prescription-strength ibuprofen is under pressure – it has a high incidence of new-onset hypertension, particularly when compared to the more selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib. Before we did this study, many would have said it’s the other way around,” observed Dr. Ruschitzka, professor of cardiology at the University of Zurich.
He presented the results of PRECISION-ABPM (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement).
“These results will have impact on your daily practice when you go home,” the cardiologist promised.
PRECISION-ABPM was a prespecified double-blind, randomized, 60-center substudy of the published PRECISION trial, which included 24,081 U.S. patients who needed daily NSAIDs for arthritis and were also at increased cardiovascular risk. They were randomized to the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib at 100-200 mg b.i.d. or the nonselective NSAIDs ibuprofen at 600-800 mg three times a day or naproxen at 375-500 mg twice daily. Participants also received a proton pump inhibitor to protect against NSAID-related GI bleeding. In the on-treatment analysis, the ibuprofen group was significantly more likely to experience cardiovascular and all-cause mortality and renal events than were those on celecoxib (N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 29;375[26]:2519-29).
The PRECISION-ABPM substudy included 444 arthritis patients, 92% of whom had osteoarthritis. During the 4-month study, investigators amassed roughly 60,000 automated blood pressure measurements across the three study arms.
The primary outcome was change from baseline in mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure (SBP). It increased by 3.7 mm Hg in the ibuprofen group and declined by 0.3 mm Hg in the celecoxib group, while the naproxen group occupied the middle ground with a 1.6-mm Hg increase.
The nearly 4-mm Hg increase in mean 24-hour SBP at 4 months in the ibuprofen group is of sufficient magnitude to be clinically important, Dr. Ruschitzka noted. He noted that fully 23.2% of ibuprofen-treated patients who had normal baseline blood pressure developed hypertension as defined by a mean 24-hour SBP of at least 130 and/or a diastolic blood pressure of at least 80 mm Hg. In contrast, incident hypertension occurred in only 10.3% of the celecoxib group and 19% of naproxen-treated patients. Thus, the likelihood of developing hypertension was 61% less with celecoxib than ibuprofen and 51% less with celecoxib than naproxen.
Not treating chronic arthritic pain to avoid the cardiovascular risk of NSAIDs is not a legitimate option.
“Pain is a cardiovascular risk factor,” Dr. Ruschitzka emphasized. “It’s unethical not to treat it. If you don’t treat pain, the patient’s blood pressure goes up, heart rate goes up, and you’re driving patients into inactivity.”
Although he’s convinced there’s no such thing as a safe NSAID from a cardiovascular risk standpoint, the PRECISION and PRECISION-ABPM data show celecoxib is less unsafe than ibuprofen. And as for the oft-heard statement that naproxen is the safest NSAID for the heart, Dr. Ruschitzka snorted, “What an urban legend.”
Discussant Scott Solomon, MD, opined that, while PRECISION-ABPM doesn’t support the notion that conventional NSAIDs such as naproxen or ibuprofen are any safer than celecoxib, it would be wrong to conclude from the study that celecoxib doesn’t affect blood pressure and is safer than the others from a cardiovascular standpoint. That’s because the three study drugs weren’t compared in an equipotent way. Because of safety concerns, the Food and Drug Administration required that the daily dose of celecoxib be capped at the low end of the therapeutic range, while no such constraints were placed on the two nonselective NSAIDS.
“Compared to placebo, all NSAIDs likely raise blood pressure, especially in patients prone to hypertension, those with chronic kidney disease, the elderly – and this is exactly the type of patients who require NSAIDs for arthritis. Whichever NSAID is chosen, clinicians should be aware of this effect and treat hypertension according to guidelines,” said Dr. Solomon, director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.
Dr. Solomon has been a key figure in the COX-2 inhibitor controversy of the last decade. He was lead author of a 2005 review of data from clinical trials of COX-2 inhibitors for colorectal adenoma prevention, which concluded that the drugs had a cardiovascular safety issue in that setting (N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 17;352[11]:1071-80).
“Our analysis of celecoxib concluded that a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular events was there, was real, but notably occurred at doses which were substantially higher than what we typically use for patients with arthritis,” he said.
That report triggered a fevered reaction.
“Amid an enormous amount of hype, hyperbole, and hysteria, the safety of these agents was thrown into question, leading to the withdrawal of all but one of them from the market and a black-box warning around the one remaining agent, celecoxib,” he recalled.
Dr. Ruschitzka discussed his findings in a video interview.
PRECISION-ABPM was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Ruschitzka and Dr. Solomon reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding their presentations.
BARCELONA – Prescription-strength ibuprofen has a bigger adverse effect on blood pressure than celecoxib or naproxen, a finding that suggests a likely mechanism for the worse cardiovascular event rate documented in ibuprofen-treated arthritis patients in the PRECISION trial, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“Prescription-strength ibuprofen is under pressure – it has a high incidence of new-onset hypertension, particularly when compared to the more selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib. Before we did this study, many would have said it’s the other way around,” observed Dr. Ruschitzka, professor of cardiology at the University of Zurich.
He presented the results of PRECISION-ABPM (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement).
“These results will have impact on your daily practice when you go home,” the cardiologist promised.
PRECISION-ABPM was a prespecified double-blind, randomized, 60-center substudy of the published PRECISION trial, which included 24,081 U.S. patients who needed daily NSAIDs for arthritis and were also at increased cardiovascular risk. They were randomized to the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib at 100-200 mg b.i.d. or the nonselective NSAIDs ibuprofen at 600-800 mg three times a day or naproxen at 375-500 mg twice daily. Participants also received a proton pump inhibitor to protect against NSAID-related GI bleeding. In the on-treatment analysis, the ibuprofen group was significantly more likely to experience cardiovascular and all-cause mortality and renal events than were those on celecoxib (N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 29;375[26]:2519-29).
The PRECISION-ABPM substudy included 444 arthritis patients, 92% of whom had osteoarthritis. During the 4-month study, investigators amassed roughly 60,000 automated blood pressure measurements across the three study arms.
The primary outcome was change from baseline in mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure (SBP). It increased by 3.7 mm Hg in the ibuprofen group and declined by 0.3 mm Hg in the celecoxib group, while the naproxen group occupied the middle ground with a 1.6-mm Hg increase.
The nearly 4-mm Hg increase in mean 24-hour SBP at 4 months in the ibuprofen group is of sufficient magnitude to be clinically important, Dr. Ruschitzka noted. He noted that fully 23.2% of ibuprofen-treated patients who had normal baseline blood pressure developed hypertension as defined by a mean 24-hour SBP of at least 130 and/or a diastolic blood pressure of at least 80 mm Hg. In contrast, incident hypertension occurred in only 10.3% of the celecoxib group and 19% of naproxen-treated patients. Thus, the likelihood of developing hypertension was 61% less with celecoxib than ibuprofen and 51% less with celecoxib than naproxen.
Not treating chronic arthritic pain to avoid the cardiovascular risk of NSAIDs is not a legitimate option.
“Pain is a cardiovascular risk factor,” Dr. Ruschitzka emphasized. “It’s unethical not to treat it. If you don’t treat pain, the patient’s blood pressure goes up, heart rate goes up, and you’re driving patients into inactivity.”
Although he’s convinced there’s no such thing as a safe NSAID from a cardiovascular risk standpoint, the PRECISION and PRECISION-ABPM data show celecoxib is less unsafe than ibuprofen. And as for the oft-heard statement that naproxen is the safest NSAID for the heart, Dr. Ruschitzka snorted, “What an urban legend.”
Discussant Scott Solomon, MD, opined that, while PRECISION-ABPM doesn’t support the notion that conventional NSAIDs such as naproxen or ibuprofen are any safer than celecoxib, it would be wrong to conclude from the study that celecoxib doesn’t affect blood pressure and is safer than the others from a cardiovascular standpoint. That’s because the three study drugs weren’t compared in an equipotent way. Because of safety concerns, the Food and Drug Administration required that the daily dose of celecoxib be capped at the low end of the therapeutic range, while no such constraints were placed on the two nonselective NSAIDS.
“Compared to placebo, all NSAIDs likely raise blood pressure, especially in patients prone to hypertension, those with chronic kidney disease, the elderly – and this is exactly the type of patients who require NSAIDs for arthritis. Whichever NSAID is chosen, clinicians should be aware of this effect and treat hypertension according to guidelines,” said Dr. Solomon, director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.
Dr. Solomon has been a key figure in the COX-2 inhibitor controversy of the last decade. He was lead author of a 2005 review of data from clinical trials of COX-2 inhibitors for colorectal adenoma prevention, which concluded that the drugs had a cardiovascular safety issue in that setting (N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 17;352[11]:1071-80).
“Our analysis of celecoxib concluded that a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular events was there, was real, but notably occurred at doses which were substantially higher than what we typically use for patients with arthritis,” he said.
That report triggered a fevered reaction.
“Amid an enormous amount of hype, hyperbole, and hysteria, the safety of these agents was thrown into question, leading to the withdrawal of all but one of them from the market and a black-box warning around the one remaining agent, celecoxib,” he recalled.
Dr. Ruschitzka discussed his findings in a video interview.
PRECISION-ABPM was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Ruschitzka and Dr. Solomon reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding their presentations.
AT THE ESC CONGRESS 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Incident hypertension occurred within 4 months in 23.2% of arthritis patients on ibuprofen, compared with 10.3% taking celecoxib and 19% on naproxen.
Data source: This was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, prospective trial including 444 arthritis patients at increased cardiovascular risk who underwent 4 months of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring after being assigned to prescription-strength ibuprofen, naproxen, or celecoxib.
Disclosures: The PRECISION-ABPM trial was sponsored by Pfizer. The presenter reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
Percutaneous Trigger Finger Release
VIDEO: Rivaroxaban plus aspirin cut cardiovascular events in stable patients
BARCELONA – Combined treatment with a very low dosage of the anticoagulant rivaroxaban plus low-dose aspirin produced significant cuts in major adverse coronary, cerebral, and peripheral artery disease events with just a modest rise in major bleeding events in patients with stable disease in the COMPASS pivotal, randomized trial with more than 27,000 patients.
The benefits from the rivaroxaban plus aspirin regimen included a statistically significant 24% relative risk reduction in the study’s primary, combined endpoint, and a significant 18% relative risk reduction in all-cause death compared with a standard regimen of aspirin only, John W. Eikelboom, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. In addition, analysis of the net clinical benefit from treatment that took into account both the major adverse cardiovascular events prevented and major bleeding events induced, showed that the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin regimen cut these by a statistically significant 20%, compared with aspirin alone.
Other notable benefits documented by the findings included a statistically significant 42% relative risk reduction for stroke and a statistically significant 46% relative risk reduction in the incidence of major adverse limb events among the roughly one-quarter of enrolled patients who entered the study with evidence of peripheral artery disease.
These risk reductions are similar in magnitude to the secondary-prevention benefits produced by controlling hypertension or dyslipidemia, noted Dr. Eikelboom, a researcher at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. “In the future, rivaroxaban will take its place among the other foundational treatments for long-term, secondary prevention,” he predicted in a video interview.
The COMPASS trial produced “unambiguous results that should change guidelines and the management of stable coronary artery disease,” commented Eugene Braunwald, MD, designated discussant for Dr. Eikelboom’s report. The results are “an important step for thrombocardiology,” said Dr. Braunwald, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Concurrently with Dr. Eikelboom’s report the results appeared in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709118). This publication also include an editorial by Dr. Braunwald (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1710241).
The Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease (COMPASS) trial enrolled 27,395 patients with stable coronary, carotid, or peripheral artery disease, or a combination of two or more of these, at 602 centers in 33 countries. About 90% of enrolled patients had coronary artery disease and 27% had peripheral artery disease. The enrolled patients averaged 68 year old and were an average of 7 years removed from their index arterial event. Randomization assigned patients to receive 2.5 mg rivaroxaban (Xarelto) twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin daily, 5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily, or 100 mg aspirin once daily. The trial stopped early, after an average follow-up of 23 months, because of the overwhelming benefit seen for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination. The rivaroxaban-monotherapy arm failed to show any statistically significant benefits, compared with the aspirin-monotherapy control group.
The study’s primary endpoint – the combined rate of cardiovascular disease death, nonfatal stroke, and nonfatal MI – occurred in 4.1% of patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group and in 5.4% of patients on aspirin alone. The rate of major bleeding events was 3.1% among patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin and 1.9% in those who received aspirin only, a 51% relative increase among patients on the dual regimen, but the results showed no statistically significant increase in the rates of fatal bleeds, intracerebral bleeds, or bleeding in other critical organs.
Sonia Anand, MD, a colleague of Dr. Eikelboom’s at McMaster, presented a separate set of analyses that focused on the 7,470 enrolled patients who had been diagnosed at enrollment with peripheral artery disease. In this subgroup, the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin regimen produced a statistically significant 28% relative risk reduction in the rate of the primary endpoint, compared with the aspirin control group. The dual regimen also produced a statistically significant 46% relative risk reduction in major adverse limb events and a significant 70% relative reduction in the incidence of major lower-extremity amputations, reported Dr. Anand, professor of medicine and director of the vascular medicine clinic at McMaster.
The COMPASS findings follow a 2012 published report from the ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial showing that treatment with the same low-dose rivaroxaban regimen plus aspirin and a thienopyridine (clopidogrel or ticlopidine) reduced the same combined triple endpoint by a statistically significant 16%, compared with aspirin and a thienopyridine alone, in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome event (N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 5;366[1]:9-19). Despite this evidence, the Food and Drug Administration never approved the 2.5-mg formulation of rivaroxaban, nor did it approve marketing of rivaroxaban for this acute coronary syndrome population. This decision may have been driven in part by a problem with incomplete follow-up of several of the enrolled patients.
The COMPASS results were “very consistent” with the ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 results. noted Dr. Eikelboom. “I think it’s time to look at these two trials in combination,” he suggested. Availability of the 2.5-mg rivaroxaban formulation used in both trials would allow “a treatment strategy that could start early after an acute coronary syndrome event and then extend long term,” he said.
COMPASS was sponsored by Bayer, which markets rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Eikelboom has received research support from Bayer and also from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi, Janssen, Pfizer, Portola, and Sanofi. Dr. Anand has received speaking honoraria from several drug compnies. Dr. Braunwald had no disclosures.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
The key message from COMPASS was that, although adding a very low dosage of rivaroxaban to aspirin in patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease resulted in a clear increase in major bleeding events, patients received an overall net beneficial effect from the combined regimen. The finding that clinches the net benefit from the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination, compared with aspirin alone, was that the combined regimen produced a statistically significant relative risk reduction of 18% for all-cause mortality. This finding reinforces the idea that the primary outcome was beneficial despite an increase in major bleeding events.
The finding that rivaroxaban plus aspirin produced benefit with a modest increase in bleeding risk in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) is especially important because PAD is really difficult to treat. Very few interventions have previously been proven to have a beneficial effect for patients with PAD. It’s very important to find an intervention that can reduce critical limb ischemia events in addition to reducing coronary events, stroke, and overall mortality.
The very low dosage of rivaroxaban used in COMPASS, 2.5 mg twice daily, seems to be a very important part of the study’s design. This dosage appeared to hit the sweet spot of being large enough to reduce events but with a gentle enough anticoagulation effect to avoid a significant increase in fatal, intracerebral, or critical organ bleeds. However, the patients enrolled in COMPASS, like most patients who enter trials, were generally at a lower risk for bleeding complications than we usually see in routine practice in patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease. Presuming that the Food and Drug Administration will soon approve the 2.5-mg formulation of rivaroxaban used in COMPASS, clinicians will need to be careful using this regimen on patients at increased risk for bleeding, such as frail or elderly patients with a history of bleeding events or taking other treatments that could increase bleeding risk, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In general, clinicians are wary of using treatments that increase bleeding risk, and so they may hesitate to use this combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in patients with a high bleeding risk.
The success of the approach used in COMPASS became possible with the introduction of the new oral anticoagulant drugs. Now that this class of agents has been available for a few years, clinicians have grown increasingly comfortable with them, compared with warfarin. When the new oral anticoagulants first came out, many considered them similar to warfarin. Today, there is a better appreciation that these drugs are distinct from warfarin by really causing fewer bleeding complications.
Christopher B. Granger, MD , is a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C. He has been a consultant to and has received research support from Bayer and from other drugs companies that market new oral anticoagulants. He made these comments in an interview.
The key message from COMPASS was that, although adding a very low dosage of rivaroxaban to aspirin in patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease resulted in a clear increase in major bleeding events, patients received an overall net beneficial effect from the combined regimen. The finding that clinches the net benefit from the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination, compared with aspirin alone, was that the combined regimen produced a statistically significant relative risk reduction of 18% for all-cause mortality. This finding reinforces the idea that the primary outcome was beneficial despite an increase in major bleeding events.
The finding that rivaroxaban plus aspirin produced benefit with a modest increase in bleeding risk in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) is especially important because PAD is really difficult to treat. Very few interventions have previously been proven to have a beneficial effect for patients with PAD. It’s very important to find an intervention that can reduce critical limb ischemia events in addition to reducing coronary events, stroke, and overall mortality.
The very low dosage of rivaroxaban used in COMPASS, 2.5 mg twice daily, seems to be a very important part of the study’s design. This dosage appeared to hit the sweet spot of being large enough to reduce events but with a gentle enough anticoagulation effect to avoid a significant increase in fatal, intracerebral, or critical organ bleeds. However, the patients enrolled in COMPASS, like most patients who enter trials, were generally at a lower risk for bleeding complications than we usually see in routine practice in patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease. Presuming that the Food and Drug Administration will soon approve the 2.5-mg formulation of rivaroxaban used in COMPASS, clinicians will need to be careful using this regimen on patients at increased risk for bleeding, such as frail or elderly patients with a history of bleeding events or taking other treatments that could increase bleeding risk, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In general, clinicians are wary of using treatments that increase bleeding risk, and so they may hesitate to use this combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in patients with a high bleeding risk.
The success of the approach used in COMPASS became possible with the introduction of the new oral anticoagulant drugs. Now that this class of agents has been available for a few years, clinicians have grown increasingly comfortable with them, compared with warfarin. When the new oral anticoagulants first came out, many considered them similar to warfarin. Today, there is a better appreciation that these drugs are distinct from warfarin by really causing fewer bleeding complications.
Christopher B. Granger, MD , is a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C. He has been a consultant to and has received research support from Bayer and from other drugs companies that market new oral anticoagulants. He made these comments in an interview.
The key message from COMPASS was that, although adding a very low dosage of rivaroxaban to aspirin in patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease resulted in a clear increase in major bleeding events, patients received an overall net beneficial effect from the combined regimen. The finding that clinches the net benefit from the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination, compared with aspirin alone, was that the combined regimen produced a statistically significant relative risk reduction of 18% for all-cause mortality. This finding reinforces the idea that the primary outcome was beneficial despite an increase in major bleeding events.
The finding that rivaroxaban plus aspirin produced benefit with a modest increase in bleeding risk in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) is especially important because PAD is really difficult to treat. Very few interventions have previously been proven to have a beneficial effect for patients with PAD. It’s very important to find an intervention that can reduce critical limb ischemia events in addition to reducing coronary events, stroke, and overall mortality.
The very low dosage of rivaroxaban used in COMPASS, 2.5 mg twice daily, seems to be a very important part of the study’s design. This dosage appeared to hit the sweet spot of being large enough to reduce events but with a gentle enough anticoagulation effect to avoid a significant increase in fatal, intracerebral, or critical organ bleeds. However, the patients enrolled in COMPASS, like most patients who enter trials, were generally at a lower risk for bleeding complications than we usually see in routine practice in patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease. Presuming that the Food and Drug Administration will soon approve the 2.5-mg formulation of rivaroxaban used in COMPASS, clinicians will need to be careful using this regimen on patients at increased risk for bleeding, such as frail or elderly patients with a history of bleeding events or taking other treatments that could increase bleeding risk, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In general, clinicians are wary of using treatments that increase bleeding risk, and so they may hesitate to use this combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in patients with a high bleeding risk.
The success of the approach used in COMPASS became possible with the introduction of the new oral anticoagulant drugs. Now that this class of agents has been available for a few years, clinicians have grown increasingly comfortable with them, compared with warfarin. When the new oral anticoagulants first came out, many considered them similar to warfarin. Today, there is a better appreciation that these drugs are distinct from warfarin by really causing fewer bleeding complications.
Christopher B. Granger, MD , is a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C. He has been a consultant to and has received research support from Bayer and from other drugs companies that market new oral anticoagulants. He made these comments in an interview.
BARCELONA – Combined treatment with a very low dosage of the anticoagulant rivaroxaban plus low-dose aspirin produced significant cuts in major adverse coronary, cerebral, and peripheral artery disease events with just a modest rise in major bleeding events in patients with stable disease in the COMPASS pivotal, randomized trial with more than 27,000 patients.
The benefits from the rivaroxaban plus aspirin regimen included a statistically significant 24% relative risk reduction in the study’s primary, combined endpoint, and a significant 18% relative risk reduction in all-cause death compared with a standard regimen of aspirin only, John W. Eikelboom, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. In addition, analysis of the net clinical benefit from treatment that took into account both the major adverse cardiovascular events prevented and major bleeding events induced, showed that the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin regimen cut these by a statistically significant 20%, compared with aspirin alone.
Other notable benefits documented by the findings included a statistically significant 42% relative risk reduction for stroke and a statistically significant 46% relative risk reduction in the incidence of major adverse limb events among the roughly one-quarter of enrolled patients who entered the study with evidence of peripheral artery disease.
These risk reductions are similar in magnitude to the secondary-prevention benefits produced by controlling hypertension or dyslipidemia, noted Dr. Eikelboom, a researcher at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. “In the future, rivaroxaban will take its place among the other foundational treatments for long-term, secondary prevention,” he predicted in a video interview.
The COMPASS trial produced “unambiguous results that should change guidelines and the management of stable coronary artery disease,” commented Eugene Braunwald, MD, designated discussant for Dr. Eikelboom’s report. The results are “an important step for thrombocardiology,” said Dr. Braunwald, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Concurrently with Dr. Eikelboom’s report the results appeared in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709118). This publication also include an editorial by Dr. Braunwald (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1710241).
The Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease (COMPASS) trial enrolled 27,395 patients with stable coronary, carotid, or peripheral artery disease, or a combination of two or more of these, at 602 centers in 33 countries. About 90% of enrolled patients had coronary artery disease and 27% had peripheral artery disease. The enrolled patients averaged 68 year old and were an average of 7 years removed from their index arterial event. Randomization assigned patients to receive 2.5 mg rivaroxaban (Xarelto) twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin daily, 5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily, or 100 mg aspirin once daily. The trial stopped early, after an average follow-up of 23 months, because of the overwhelming benefit seen for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination. The rivaroxaban-monotherapy arm failed to show any statistically significant benefits, compared with the aspirin-monotherapy control group.
The study’s primary endpoint – the combined rate of cardiovascular disease death, nonfatal stroke, and nonfatal MI – occurred in 4.1% of patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group and in 5.4% of patients on aspirin alone. The rate of major bleeding events was 3.1% among patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin and 1.9% in those who received aspirin only, a 51% relative increase among patients on the dual regimen, but the results showed no statistically significant increase in the rates of fatal bleeds, intracerebral bleeds, or bleeding in other critical organs.
Sonia Anand, MD, a colleague of Dr. Eikelboom’s at McMaster, presented a separate set of analyses that focused on the 7,470 enrolled patients who had been diagnosed at enrollment with peripheral artery disease. In this subgroup, the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin regimen produced a statistically significant 28% relative risk reduction in the rate of the primary endpoint, compared with the aspirin control group. The dual regimen also produced a statistically significant 46% relative risk reduction in major adverse limb events and a significant 70% relative reduction in the incidence of major lower-extremity amputations, reported Dr. Anand, professor of medicine and director of the vascular medicine clinic at McMaster.
The COMPASS findings follow a 2012 published report from the ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial showing that treatment with the same low-dose rivaroxaban regimen plus aspirin and a thienopyridine (clopidogrel or ticlopidine) reduced the same combined triple endpoint by a statistically significant 16%, compared with aspirin and a thienopyridine alone, in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome event (N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 5;366[1]:9-19). Despite this evidence, the Food and Drug Administration never approved the 2.5-mg formulation of rivaroxaban, nor did it approve marketing of rivaroxaban for this acute coronary syndrome population. This decision may have been driven in part by a problem with incomplete follow-up of several of the enrolled patients.
The COMPASS results were “very consistent” with the ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 results. noted Dr. Eikelboom. “I think it’s time to look at these two trials in combination,” he suggested. Availability of the 2.5-mg rivaroxaban formulation used in both trials would allow “a treatment strategy that could start early after an acute coronary syndrome event and then extend long term,” he said.
COMPASS was sponsored by Bayer, which markets rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Eikelboom has received research support from Bayer and also from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi, Janssen, Pfizer, Portola, and Sanofi. Dr. Anand has received speaking honoraria from several drug compnies. Dr. Braunwald had no disclosures.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
BARCELONA – Combined treatment with a very low dosage of the anticoagulant rivaroxaban plus low-dose aspirin produced significant cuts in major adverse coronary, cerebral, and peripheral artery disease events with just a modest rise in major bleeding events in patients with stable disease in the COMPASS pivotal, randomized trial with more than 27,000 patients.
The benefits from the rivaroxaban plus aspirin regimen included a statistically significant 24% relative risk reduction in the study’s primary, combined endpoint, and a significant 18% relative risk reduction in all-cause death compared with a standard regimen of aspirin only, John W. Eikelboom, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. In addition, analysis of the net clinical benefit from treatment that took into account both the major adverse cardiovascular events prevented and major bleeding events induced, showed that the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin regimen cut these by a statistically significant 20%, compared with aspirin alone.
Other notable benefits documented by the findings included a statistically significant 42% relative risk reduction for stroke and a statistically significant 46% relative risk reduction in the incidence of major adverse limb events among the roughly one-quarter of enrolled patients who entered the study with evidence of peripheral artery disease.
These risk reductions are similar in magnitude to the secondary-prevention benefits produced by controlling hypertension or dyslipidemia, noted Dr. Eikelboom, a researcher at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. “In the future, rivaroxaban will take its place among the other foundational treatments for long-term, secondary prevention,” he predicted in a video interview.
The COMPASS trial produced “unambiguous results that should change guidelines and the management of stable coronary artery disease,” commented Eugene Braunwald, MD, designated discussant for Dr. Eikelboom’s report. The results are “an important step for thrombocardiology,” said Dr. Braunwald, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Concurrently with Dr. Eikelboom’s report the results appeared in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709118). This publication also include an editorial by Dr. Braunwald (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1710241).
The Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease (COMPASS) trial enrolled 27,395 patients with stable coronary, carotid, or peripheral artery disease, or a combination of two or more of these, at 602 centers in 33 countries. About 90% of enrolled patients had coronary artery disease and 27% had peripheral artery disease. The enrolled patients averaged 68 year old and were an average of 7 years removed from their index arterial event. Randomization assigned patients to receive 2.5 mg rivaroxaban (Xarelto) twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin daily, 5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily, or 100 mg aspirin once daily. The trial stopped early, after an average follow-up of 23 months, because of the overwhelming benefit seen for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination. The rivaroxaban-monotherapy arm failed to show any statistically significant benefits, compared with the aspirin-monotherapy control group.
The study’s primary endpoint – the combined rate of cardiovascular disease death, nonfatal stroke, and nonfatal MI – occurred in 4.1% of patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group and in 5.4% of patients on aspirin alone. The rate of major bleeding events was 3.1% among patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin and 1.9% in those who received aspirin only, a 51% relative increase among patients on the dual regimen, but the results showed no statistically significant increase in the rates of fatal bleeds, intracerebral bleeds, or bleeding in other critical organs.
Sonia Anand, MD, a colleague of Dr. Eikelboom’s at McMaster, presented a separate set of analyses that focused on the 7,470 enrolled patients who had been diagnosed at enrollment with peripheral artery disease. In this subgroup, the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin regimen produced a statistically significant 28% relative risk reduction in the rate of the primary endpoint, compared with the aspirin control group. The dual regimen also produced a statistically significant 46% relative risk reduction in major adverse limb events and a significant 70% relative reduction in the incidence of major lower-extremity amputations, reported Dr. Anand, professor of medicine and director of the vascular medicine clinic at McMaster.
The COMPASS findings follow a 2012 published report from the ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial showing that treatment with the same low-dose rivaroxaban regimen plus aspirin and a thienopyridine (clopidogrel or ticlopidine) reduced the same combined triple endpoint by a statistically significant 16%, compared with aspirin and a thienopyridine alone, in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome event (N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 5;366[1]:9-19). Despite this evidence, the Food and Drug Administration never approved the 2.5-mg formulation of rivaroxaban, nor did it approve marketing of rivaroxaban for this acute coronary syndrome population. This decision may have been driven in part by a problem with incomplete follow-up of several of the enrolled patients.
The COMPASS results were “very consistent” with the ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 results. noted Dr. Eikelboom. “I think it’s time to look at these two trials in combination,” he suggested. Availability of the 2.5-mg rivaroxaban formulation used in both trials would allow “a treatment strategy that could start early after an acute coronary syndrome event and then extend long term,” he said.
COMPASS was sponsored by Bayer, which markets rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Eikelboom has received research support from Bayer and also from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi, Janssen, Pfizer, Portola, and Sanofi. Dr. Anand has received speaking honoraria from several drug compnies. Dr. Braunwald had no disclosures.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT THE ESC CONGRESS 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The dual regimen reduced the combined rate of cardiovascular disease events by 24%, compared with aspirin alone.
Data source: COMPASS is a multicenter, randomized controlled trial with 27,395 patients.
Disclosures: COMPASS was sponsored by Bayer, which markets rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Eikelboom has received research support from Bayer and also from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi, Janssen, Pfizer, Portola, and Sanofi. Dr. Anand has received speaking honoraria from several drug compnies. Dr. Braunwald had no disclosures.
VIDEO: How to catch postpartum necrotizing fasciitis in time
PARK CITY, UTAH – , and it’s easy to misdiagnose at first.
There’s no pus, and the skin can look mostly normal with just a little swelling. The tipoff is pain that seems out of proportion to the clinical signs.
David Eschenbach, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, knows the infection well. In an interview at the annual scientific meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology, he shared his insights on how physicians can recognize and treat postpartum necrotizing fasciitis in time to limit the damage.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
PARK CITY, UTAH – , and it’s easy to misdiagnose at first.
There’s no pus, and the skin can look mostly normal with just a little swelling. The tipoff is pain that seems out of proportion to the clinical signs.
David Eschenbach, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, knows the infection well. In an interview at the annual scientific meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology, he shared his insights on how physicians can recognize and treat postpartum necrotizing fasciitis in time to limit the damage.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
PARK CITY, UTAH – , and it’s easy to misdiagnose at first.
There’s no pus, and the skin can look mostly normal with just a little swelling. The tipoff is pain that seems out of proportion to the clinical signs.
David Eschenbach, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, knows the infection well. In an interview at the annual scientific meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology, he shared his insights on how physicians can recognize and treat postpartum necrotizing fasciitis in time to limit the damage.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT IDSOG
VIDEO: When to turn to surgery in postpartum uterine infection
PARK CITY, UTAH – When postpartum infections don’t respond to antibiotics, doctors and surgeons need to move fast; surgery – often hysterectomy – is the only thing that will save the woman’s life.
The problem is that with today’s antibiotics, doctors may have never encountered the situation, and sometimes continue to treat with antibiotics until it’s too late.
In Seattle, physicians turn to David Eschenbach, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, for advice on when it’s time to give up on antibiotics and go to the OR. It’s a difficult decision, especially when patients are young.
In an interview at the annual scientific meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. Eschenbach shared what he’s learned from decades of experience in dealing with one of the most devastating postpartum complications.
PARK CITY, UTAH – When postpartum infections don’t respond to antibiotics, doctors and surgeons need to move fast; surgery – often hysterectomy – is the only thing that will save the woman’s life.
The problem is that with today’s antibiotics, doctors may have never encountered the situation, and sometimes continue to treat with antibiotics until it’s too late.
In Seattle, physicians turn to David Eschenbach, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, for advice on when it’s time to give up on antibiotics and go to the OR. It’s a difficult decision, especially when patients are young.
In an interview at the annual scientific meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. Eschenbach shared what he’s learned from decades of experience in dealing with one of the most devastating postpartum complications.
PARK CITY, UTAH – When postpartum infections don’t respond to antibiotics, doctors and surgeons need to move fast; surgery – often hysterectomy – is the only thing that will save the woman’s life.
The problem is that with today’s antibiotics, doctors may have never encountered the situation, and sometimes continue to treat with antibiotics until it’s too late.
In Seattle, physicians turn to David Eschenbach, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, for advice on when it’s time to give up on antibiotics and go to the OR. It’s a difficult decision, especially when patients are young.
In an interview at the annual scientific meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. Eschenbach shared what he’s learned from decades of experience in dealing with one of the most devastating postpartum complications.
AT IDSOG
