Acute Coronary Syndromes

The prevalence of asymptomatic central sleep apnea after acute coronary syndrome is high and may be associated with the use of ticagrelor, a new study finds.
Prior studies have suggested that ticagrelor is associated with an increased likelihood of central sleep apnea. The drug’s label notes that two respiratory conditions – central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration – are adverse reactions that were identified after the drug’s approval in the United States in 2011. “Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of an unknown size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the label says. 
Among 80 patients receiving ticagrelor, 24 had central sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (CSAHS), whereas of 41 patients not taking ticagrelor, 3 had this condition (30% vs. 7.3%, P = .004), in the new study published online Jan. 20, 2021, in Sleep Medicine. A multivariable analysis included in the paper found that age and ticagrelor administration were the only two factors associated with the occurrence of CSAHS.

Findings are ‘striking’

The different rates of central sleep apnea in the study are striking, but it is not clear that asymptomatic central sleep apnea in patients taking ticagrelor is a concern, Ofer Jacobowitz, MD, PhD, associate professor of otolaryngology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y, said in an interview.

Study author continues to prescribe ticagrelor

One of the study authors, Philippe Meurin, MD, said that he continues to prescribe ticagrelor every day and that the side effect is not necessarily important. 
It is possible that central sleep apnea may resolve, although further studies would need to examine central sleep apnea over time to establish the duration of the condition, he added. Nevertheless, awareness of the association could have implications for clinical practice, Dr. Meurin said.
Central sleep apnea is rare, and if doctors detect it during a sleep study, they may perform extensive tests to assess for possible neurologic diseases, for example, when the cause may be attributed to the medication, he said. In addition, if a patient who is taking ticagrelor has dyspnea, the presence of central sleep apnea may suggest that dyspnea could be related to the drug, although this possibility needs further study, he noted.

Study included patients with ACS history, but no heart failure

Dr. Meurin, of Centre de Réadaptation Cardiaque de La Brie, Les Grands Prés, Villeneuve-Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues included in their study patients between 1 week and 1 year after acute coronary syndrome who did not have heart failure or a history of sleep apnea.
After an overnight sleep study, they classified patients as normal, as having CSAHS (i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with central sleep apneas), or as having obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS; i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with obstructive sleep apneas).
The prospective study included 121 consecutive patients between January 2018 and March 2020. Patients had a mean age of 56.8, and 88% were men.

Switching to another P2Y12 inhibitor ‘does not seem appropriate’

“CSAHS could be promoted by the use of ticagrelor, a relatively new drug that modifies the apneic threshold,” the study authors wrote. “Regarding underlying mechanisms, the most probable explanation seems to be increased chemosensitivity to hypercapnia by a direct P2Y12 inhibitory effect on the central nervous system.”
Doctors should not overestimate the severity of the adverse reaction or consider it the same way they do OSASH, they added. 
Among patients with acute coronary syndrome in the PLATO study, ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, “significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said. “Because in this study more than 9,000 patients received ticagrelor for 12 months, CSAHS (even if it seems frequent in our study) did not seem to impair the good efficacy/tolerance balance of the drug. Therefore, in asymptomatic CSAHS patients, switching from ticagrelor to another P2Y12 inhibitor does not seem appropriate.”
A recent analysis of data from randomized, controlled trials with ticagrelor did not find excess cases of sleep apnea with the drug. But an asymptomatic adverse event such as central sleep apnea “cannot emerge from a post hoc analysis,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said.
The analysis of randomized trial data was conducted by Marc S. Sabatine, MD, MPH, chairman of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coauthors. It was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions in April 2020.
They “used the gold standard for medical evidence (randomized, placebo-controlled trials) and found 158 cases of sleep apnea reported, with absolutely no difference between ticagrelor and placebo,” Dr. Sabatine said in an interview. Their analysis examined clinically overt apnea, he noted.
“It is quite clear that when looking at large numbers in placebo-controlled trials, there is no excess,” Dr. Sabatine said. “Meurin et al. are examining a different outcome: the results of a lab test in what may be entirely asymptomatic patients.”
A randomized trial could confirm the association, he said.
“The association may be real, but also may be play of chance or confounded,” said Dr. Sabatine. “To convince the medical community, the next step would be for the investigators to do a randomized trial and test whether ticagrelor increases the risk of central sleep apnea.”
Dr. Meurin and the study coauthors had no disclosures. The analysis of randomized, controlled trial data by Dr. Sabatine and colleagues was funded by AstraZeneca, which distributes ticagrelor under the trade name Brilinta. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant for AstraZeneca and received research grants through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca. He has consulted for and received grants through the hospital from other companies as well. Dr. Jacobowitz had no relevant disclosures.
jremaly@mdedge.com 

The prevalence of asymptomatic central sleep apnea after acute coronary syndrome is high and may be associated with the use of ticagrelor, a new study finds.
Prior studies have suggested that ticagrelor is associated with an increased likelihood of central sleep apnea. The drug’s label notes that two respiratory conditions – central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration – are adverse reactions that were identified after the drug’s approval in the United States in 2011. “Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of an unknown size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the label says. 
Among 80 patients receiving ticagrelor, 24 had central sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (CSAHS), whereas of 41 patients not taking ticagrelor, 3 had this condition (30% vs. 7.3%, P = .004), in the new study published online Jan. 20, 2021, in Sleep Medicine. A multivariable analysis included in the paper found that age and ticagrelor administration were the only two factors associated with the occurrence of CSAHS.

Findings are ‘striking’

The different rates of central sleep apnea in the study are striking, but it is not clear that asymptomatic central sleep apnea in patients taking ticagrelor is a concern, Ofer Jacobowitz, MD, PhD, associate professor of otolaryngology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y, said in an interview.

Study author continues to prescribe ticagrelor

One of the study authors, Philippe Meurin, MD, said that he continues to prescribe ticagrelor every day and that the side effect is not necessarily important. 
It is possible that central sleep apnea may resolve, although further studies would need to examine central sleep apnea over time to establish the duration of the condition, he added. Nevertheless, awareness of the association could have implications for clinical practice, Dr. Meurin said.
Central sleep apnea is rare, and if doctors detect it during a sleep study, they may perform extensive tests to assess for possible neurologic diseases, for example, when the cause may be attributed to the medication, he said. In addition, if a patient who is taking ticagrelor has dyspnea, the presence of central sleep apnea may suggest that dyspnea could be related to the drug, although this possibility needs further study, he noted.

Study included patients with ACS history, but no heart failure

Dr. Meurin, of Centre de Réadaptation Cardiaque de La Brie, Les Grands Prés, Villeneuve-Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues included in their study patients between 1 week and 1 year after acute coronary syndrome who did not have heart failure or a history of sleep apnea.
After an overnight sleep study, they classified patients as normal, as having CSAHS (i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with central sleep apneas), or as having obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS; i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with obstructive sleep apneas).
The prospective study included 121 consecutive patients between January 2018 and March 2020. Patients had a mean age of 56.8, and 88% were men.

Switching to another P2Y12 inhibitor ‘does not seem appropriate’

“CSAHS could be promoted by the use of ticagrelor, a relatively new drug that modifies the apneic threshold,” the study authors wrote. “Regarding underlying mechanisms, the most probable explanation seems to be increased chemosensitivity to hypercapnia by a direct P2Y12 inhibitory effect on the central nervous system.”
Doctors should not overestimate the severity of the adverse reaction or consider it the same way they do OSASH, they added. 
Among patients with acute coronary syndrome in the PLATO study, ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, “significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said. “Because in this study more than 9,000 patients received ticagrelor for 12 months, CSAHS (even if it seems frequent in our study) did not seem to impair the good efficacy/tolerance balance of the drug. Therefore, in asymptomatic CSAHS patients, switching from ticagrelor to another P2Y12 inhibitor does not seem appropriate.”
A recent analysis of data from randomized, controlled trials with ticagrelor did not find excess cases of sleep apnea with the drug. But an asymptomatic adverse event such as central sleep apnea “cannot emerge from a post hoc analysis,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said.
The analysis of randomized trial data was conducted by Marc S. Sabatine, MD, MPH, chairman of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coauthors. It was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions in April 2020.
They “used the gold standard for medical evidence (randomized, placebo-controlled trials) and found 158 cases of sleep apnea reported, with absolutely no difference between ticagrelor and placebo,” Dr. Sabatine said in an interview. Their analysis examined clinically overt apnea, he noted.
“It is quite clear that when looking at large numbers in placebo-controlled trials, there is no excess,” Dr. Sabatine said. “Meurin et al. are examining a different outcome: the results of a lab test in what may be entirely asymptomatic patients.”
A randomized trial could confirm the association, he said.
“The association may be real, but also may be play of chance or confounded,” said Dr. Sabatine. “To convince the medical community, the next step would be for the investigators to do a randomized trial and test whether ticagrelor increases the risk of central sleep apnea.”
Dr. Meurin and the study coauthors had no disclosures. The analysis of randomized, controlled trial data by Dr. Sabatine and colleagues was funded by AstraZeneca, which distributes ticagrelor under the trade name Brilinta. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant for AstraZeneca and received research grants through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca. He has consulted for and received grants through the hospital from other companies as well. Dr. Jacobowitz had no relevant disclosures.
jremaly@mdedge.com 

The prevalence of asymptomatic central sleep apnea after acute coronary syndrome is high and may be associated with the use of ticagrelor, a new study finds.
Prior studies have suggested that ticagrelor is associated with an increased likelihood of central sleep apnea. The drug’s label notes that two respiratory conditions – central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration – are adverse reactions that were identified after the drug’s approval in the United States in 2011. “Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of an unknown size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the label says. 
Among 80 patients receiving ticagrelor, 24 had central sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (CSAHS), whereas of 41 patients not taking ticagrelor, 3 had this condition (30% vs. 7.3%, P = .004), in the new study published online Jan. 20, 2021, in Sleep Medicine. A multivariable analysis included in the paper found that age and ticagrelor administration were the only two factors associated with the occurrence of CSAHS.

Findings are ‘striking’

The different rates of central sleep apnea in the study are striking, but it is not clear that asymptomatic central sleep apnea in patients taking ticagrelor is a concern, Ofer Jacobowitz, MD, PhD, associate professor of otolaryngology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y, said in an interview.

Study author continues to prescribe ticagrelor

One of the study authors, Philippe Meurin, MD, said that he continues to prescribe ticagrelor every day and that the side effect is not necessarily important. 
It is possible that central sleep apnea may resolve, although further studies would need to examine central sleep apnea over time to establish the duration of the condition, he added. Nevertheless, awareness of the association could have implications for clinical practice, Dr. Meurin said.
Central sleep apnea is rare, and if doctors detect it during a sleep study, they may perform extensive tests to assess for possible neurologic diseases, for example, when the cause may be attributed to the medication, he said. In addition, if a patient who is taking ticagrelor has dyspnea, the presence of central sleep apnea may suggest that dyspnea could be related to the drug, although this possibility needs further study, he noted.

Study included patients with ACS history, but no heart failure

Dr. Meurin, of Centre de Réadaptation Cardiaque de La Brie, Les Grands Prés, Villeneuve-Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues included in their study patients between 1 week and 1 year after acute coronary syndrome who did not have heart failure or a history of sleep apnea.
After an overnight sleep study, they classified patients as normal, as having CSAHS (i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with central sleep apneas), or as having obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS; i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with obstructive sleep apneas).
The prospective study included 121 consecutive patients between January 2018 and March 2020. Patients had a mean age of 56.8, and 88% were men.

Switching to another P2Y12 inhibitor ‘does not seem appropriate’

“CSAHS could be promoted by the use of ticagrelor, a relatively new drug that modifies the apneic threshold,” the study authors wrote. “Regarding underlying mechanisms, the most probable explanation seems to be increased chemosensitivity to hypercapnia by a direct P2Y12 inhibitory effect on the central nervous system.”
Doctors should not overestimate the severity of the adverse reaction or consider it the same way they do OSASH, they added. 
Among patients with acute coronary syndrome in the PLATO study, ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, “significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said. “Because in this study more than 9,000 patients received ticagrelor for 12 months, CSAHS (even if it seems frequent in our study) did not seem to impair the good efficacy/tolerance balance of the drug. Therefore, in asymptomatic CSAHS patients, switching from ticagrelor to another P2Y12 inhibitor does not seem appropriate.”
A recent analysis of data from randomized, controlled trials with ticagrelor did not find excess cases of sleep apnea with the drug. But an asymptomatic adverse event such as central sleep apnea “cannot emerge from a post hoc analysis,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said.
The analysis of randomized trial data was conducted by Marc S. Sabatine, MD, MPH, chairman of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coauthors. It was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions in April 2020.
They “used the gold standard for medical evidence (randomized, placebo-controlled trials) and found 158 cases of sleep apnea reported, with absolutely no difference between ticagrelor and placebo,” Dr. Sabatine said in an interview. Their analysis examined clinically overt apnea, he noted.
“It is quite clear that when looking at large numbers in placebo-controlled trials, there is no excess,” Dr. Sabatine said. “Meurin et al. are examining a different outcome: the results of a lab test in what may be entirely asymptomatic patients.”
A randomized trial could confirm the association, he said.
“The association may be real, but also may be play of chance or confounded,” said Dr. Sabatine. “To convince the medical community, the next step would be for the investigators to do a randomized trial and test whether ticagrelor increases the risk of central sleep apnea.”
Dr. Meurin and the study coauthors had no disclosures. The analysis of randomized, controlled trial data by Dr. Sabatine and colleagues was funded by AstraZeneca, which distributes ticagrelor under the trade name Brilinta. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant for AstraZeneca and received research grants through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca. He has consulted for and received grants through the hospital from other companies as well. Dr. Jacobowitz had no relevant disclosures.
jremaly@mdedge.com 

The hospital and postdischarge course of patients diagnosed with type 2 myocardial infarction, triggered when myocardial oxygen demand outstrips supply, differs in telling ways from those with the more common atherothrombotic type 1 MI, suggests a new registry analysis that aims to lift a cloud of confusion surrounding their management.

The observational study of more than 250,000 patients with either form of MI, said to be the largest of its kind, points to widespread unfamiliarity with distinctions between the two, and the diagnostic and therapeutic implications of misclassification. It suggests, in particular, that type 2 MI may be grossly underdiagnosed and undertreated.

The minority of patients with type 2 MI were more likely female and to have heart failure (HF), renal disease, valve disease, or atrial fibrillation, and less likely to have a lipid disorder, compared with those with type 1 MI. They were one-fifth as likely to be referred for coronary angiography and 20 times less likely to undergo revascularization.

Indeed, only about 2% of the type 2 cohort ultimately underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery (CABG). Yet the analysis suggests that cardiovascular risk climbs regardless of MI type and that in patients with type 2 MI, coronary revascularization might well cut the risk of death in half over the short term.

There were also disparities in clinical outcomes in the analysis, based on data from the final 3 months of 2017 in the Nationwide Readmissions Database, which reportedly documents almost 60% of hospitalizations in the United States.

For example, those with type 1 or type 2 MI – as characterized in the then-current third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction and today’s UDMI-4 – were comparably at risk for both 30-day all-cause readmission and HF readmission. But type 2 patients were less likely to die in the hospital or be readmitted within 30 days for recurrent MI.
 

Revascularization uncertainty

Importantly, the study’s 3-month observation period immediately followed the debut of a code specifically for type 2 MI in the ICD-10-CM system.

Type 2 accounted for about 15% of MIs during that period, the percentage climbing sharply from the first to the third month. That suggests clinicians were still getting used to the code during the early weeks, “undercoding” for type-2 MI at first but less so after some experience, Cian P. McCarthy, MB, BCh, BAO, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“I can imagine that as people become more aware of the coding, using it more often, the proportion of type 2 MI relative to the total MI cases will probably be much higher,” said McCarthy, lead author on the study published online Feb. 15, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

What had been understood about type 2 MI came largely from single-center studies, he said. This “first national study of type-2 MI in the United States” sought to determine whether such findings are hospital specific or “representative of what people are doing nationally.”

The new analysis largely confirms that patients with type 2 MI are typically burdened with multiple comorbidities, Dr. McCarthy said, but also suggests that type 2 often was, and likely still is, incorrectly classified as type 1. So, it was “surprising” that they were rarely referred for angiography. “Only 1 in 50 received revascularization.”

Those diagnosed with type-2 MI were far less likely to receive coronary angiography (10.9% vs. 57.3%), PCI (1.7% vs. 38.5%), or CABG (0.4% vs. 7.8%) (P < .001 for all three differences), the report noted.

That, Dr. McCarthy said, “clearly shows that clinicians are uncertain about whether revascularization is beneficial” in type 2 MI.
 

Coding not in sync with UDMI

If there is confusion in practice about differentiating type 2 from type 1 MI, it likely has multiple sources, and one may be inconsistencies in how the UDMI and relevant ICD codes are applied in practice.

For example, the coding mandate is always to classify ST-segment elevation MI and non-STEMI as type 1, yet UDMI-4 itself states that a type 2 MI may be either STEMI or non-STEMI, noted Dr. McCarthy, as well as an editorial accompanying the report.

“It also can be difficult at times to distinguish type 2 MI from the diagnosis of myocardial injury,” both of which are partly defined by elevated cardiac troponin (cTn), adds the editorial, from Kristian Thygesen, MD, DSc, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark, and Allan S. Jaffe, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Crucially, but potentially sometimes overlooked, a diagnosis of infarction requires evidence of ischemia along with the biomarker elevation, whereas myocardial injury is defined by raised cTn without evidence of ischemia. Yet there is no ICD-10-CM code for “nonischemic myocardial injury,” Dr. Thygesen and Dr. Jaffe observed.

“Instead, the new ICD-10-CM coding includes a proxy called ‘non-MI troponin elevation due to an underlying cause,’ ” they wrote. “Unfortunately, although some have advocated using this code for myocardial injury, it is not specific for an elevated cTn value and could represent any abnormal laboratory measurements.” The code could be “misleading” and thus worsen the potential for miscoding and “misattribution of MI diagnoses.”

In the current study, 84.6% of the cohort were classified with type 1 MI, 14.8% with type 2, and 0.6% with both types. Of those with type 1 MI, 22.1% had STEMI, 76.4% had non-STEMI with the remainder “unspecified.”

“I think the introduction of ICD codes for type-2 MI is helpful in that we can study type 2 MI more broadly, across institutions, and try and get a better sense of its outcomes and how these patients are treated,” Dr. McCarthy said. But the coding system’s deficiencies may often lead to misclassification of patients. Especially, patients with type 2 STEMI may be miscoded as having type-1 STEMI, and those with only myocardial injury may be miscoded as having type 2 MI.
 

Most type 2 MI is a complication

A profile of patients with type 2 MI may be helpful for making distinctions. The analysis showed that, compared with patients with type 1 MI, they were slightly but significantly older and more likely to have clinical depression, alcohol or other substance abuse disorder, and to be female. They also had more heart failure (27.9% vs. 10.9%), kidney disease (35.7% vs. 25.7%), atrial fibrillation (31% vs. 21%), and anemia (26% vs. 18.9%) (P < .001 for all differences).

Type 2 patients were less likely to have CV risk factors usually associated with plaque instability and atherothrombosis, including a history of smoking, dyslipidemia, MI, PCI, or CABG (P < .001 for all differences), the group noted.

Of the 37,765 patients with type 2 MI, 91% received the diagnosis as secondary to another condition, including sepsis in 24.5%, hypertension in 16.9%, arrhythmias in 6.1%, respiratory failure in 4.3%, and pneumonia in 2.8% of cases.

In multivariate analyses, patients with type 2 MI, compared with type 1, showed lower risks of in-hospital death and readmission for MI within 30 days. Their 30-day risks of readmission from any cause and from MI were similar.

In-hospital mortality was lower for patients with type 2 MI who underwent revascularization, compared with those who did not, “but they were a very select, small proportion of the patient group. I would say there are probably unmeasured confounders,” Dr. McCarthy said.

“There’s a real kind of equipoise, so I think we desperately need a trial to guide us on whether revascularization is beneficial.”

Dr. McCarthy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Thygesen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jaffe disclosed serving as a consultant for Abbott, Roche, Siemens, Beckman-Coulter, Radiometer, ET Healthcare, Sphingotec, Brava, Quidel, Amgen, Novartis, and Medscape for educational activities.
 

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

The hospital and postdischarge course of patients diagnosed with type 2 myocardial infarction, triggered when myocardial oxygen demand outstrips supply, differs in telling ways from those with the more common atherothrombotic type 1 MI, suggests a new registry analysis that aims to lift a cloud of confusion surrounding their management.

The observational study of more than 250,000 patients with either form of MI, said to be the largest of its kind, points to widespread unfamiliarity with distinctions between the two, and the diagnostic and therapeutic implications of misclassification. It suggests, in particular, that type 2 MI may be grossly underdiagnosed and undertreated.

The minority of patients with type 2 MI were more likely female and to have heart failure (HF), renal disease, valve disease, or atrial fibrillation, and less likely to have a lipid disorder, compared with those with type 1 MI. They were one-fifth as likely to be referred for coronary angiography and 20 times less likely to undergo revascularization.

Indeed, only about 2% of the type 2 cohort ultimately underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery (CABG). Yet the analysis suggests that cardiovascular risk climbs regardless of MI type and that in patients with type 2 MI, coronary revascularization might well cut the risk of death in half over the short term.

There were also disparities in clinical outcomes in the analysis, based on data from the final 3 months of 2017 in the Nationwide Readmissions Database, which reportedly documents almost 60% of hospitalizations in the United States.

For example, those with type 1 or type 2 MI – as characterized in the then-current third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction and today’s UDMI-4 – were comparably at risk for both 30-day all-cause readmission and HF readmission. But type 2 patients were less likely to die in the hospital or be readmitted within 30 days for recurrent MI.
 

Revascularization uncertainty

Importantly, the study’s 3-month observation period immediately followed the debut of a code specifically for type 2 MI in the ICD-10-CM system.

Type 2 accounted for about 15% of MIs during that period, the percentage climbing sharply from the first to the third month. That suggests clinicians were still getting used to the code during the early weeks, “undercoding” for type-2 MI at first but less so after some experience, Cian P. McCarthy, MB, BCh, BAO, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“I can imagine that as people become more aware of the coding, using it more often, the proportion of type 2 MI relative to the total MI cases will probably be much higher,” said McCarthy, lead author on the study published online Feb. 15, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

What had been understood about type 2 MI came largely from single-center studies, he said. This “first national study of type-2 MI in the United States” sought to determine whether such findings are hospital specific or “representative of what people are doing nationally.”

The new analysis largely confirms that patients with type 2 MI are typically burdened with multiple comorbidities, Dr. McCarthy said, but also suggests that type 2 often was, and likely still is, incorrectly classified as type 1. So, it was “surprising” that they were rarely referred for angiography. “Only 1 in 50 received revascularization.”

Those diagnosed with type-2 MI were far less likely to receive coronary angiography (10.9% vs. 57.3%), PCI (1.7% vs. 38.5%), or CABG (0.4% vs. 7.8%) (P < .001 for all three differences), the report noted.

That, Dr. McCarthy said, “clearly shows that clinicians are uncertain about whether revascularization is beneficial” in type 2 MI.
 

Coding not in sync with UDMI

If there is confusion in practice about differentiating type 2 from type 1 MI, it likely has multiple sources, and one may be inconsistencies in how the UDMI and relevant ICD codes are applied in practice.

For example, the coding mandate is always to classify ST-segment elevation MI and non-STEMI as type 1, yet UDMI-4 itself states that a type 2 MI may be either STEMI or non-STEMI, noted Dr. McCarthy, as well as an editorial accompanying the report.

“It also can be difficult at times to distinguish type 2 MI from the diagnosis of myocardial injury,” both of which are partly defined by elevated cardiac troponin (cTn), adds the editorial, from Kristian Thygesen, MD, DSc, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark, and Allan S. Jaffe, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Crucially, but potentially sometimes overlooked, a diagnosis of infarction requires evidence of ischemia along with the biomarker elevation, whereas myocardial injury is defined by raised cTn without evidence of ischemia. Yet there is no ICD-10-CM code for “nonischemic myocardial injury,” Dr. Thygesen and Dr. Jaffe observed.

“Instead, the new ICD-10-CM coding includes a proxy called ‘non-MI troponin elevation due to an underlying cause,’ ” they wrote. “Unfortunately, although some have advocated using this code for myocardial injury, it is not specific for an elevated cTn value and could represent any abnormal laboratory measurements.” The code could be “misleading” and thus worsen the potential for miscoding and “misattribution of MI diagnoses.”

In the current study, 84.6% of the cohort were classified with type 1 MI, 14.8% with type 2, and 0.6% with both types. Of those with type 1 MI, 22.1% had STEMI, 76.4% had non-STEMI with the remainder “unspecified.”

“I think the introduction of ICD codes for type-2 MI is helpful in that we can study type 2 MI more broadly, across institutions, and try and get a better sense of its outcomes and how these patients are treated,” Dr. McCarthy said. But the coding system’s deficiencies may often lead to misclassification of patients. Especially, patients with type 2 STEMI may be miscoded as having type-1 STEMI, and those with only myocardial injury may be miscoded as having type 2 MI.
 

Most type 2 MI is a complication

A profile of patients with type 2 MI may be helpful for making distinctions. The analysis showed that, compared with patients with type 1 MI, they were slightly but significantly older and more likely to have clinical depression, alcohol or other substance abuse disorder, and to be female. They also had more heart failure (27.9% vs. 10.9%), kidney disease (35.7% vs. 25.7%), atrial fibrillation (31% vs. 21%), and anemia (26% vs. 18.9%) (P < .001 for all differences).

Type 2 patients were less likely to have CV risk factors usually associated with plaque instability and atherothrombosis, including a history of smoking, dyslipidemia, MI, PCI, or CABG (P < .001 for all differences), the group noted.

Of the 37,765 patients with type 2 MI, 91% received the diagnosis as secondary to another condition, including sepsis in 24.5%, hypertension in 16.9%, arrhythmias in 6.1%, respiratory failure in 4.3%, and pneumonia in 2.8% of cases.

In multivariate analyses, patients with type 2 MI, compared with type 1, showed lower risks of in-hospital death and readmission for MI within 30 days. Their 30-day risks of readmission from any cause and from MI were similar.

In-hospital mortality was lower for patients with type 2 MI who underwent revascularization, compared with those who did not, “but they were a very select, small proportion of the patient group. I would say there are probably unmeasured confounders,” Dr. McCarthy said.

“There’s a real kind of equipoise, so I think we desperately need a trial to guide us on whether revascularization is beneficial.”

Dr. McCarthy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Thygesen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jaffe disclosed serving as a consultant for Abbott, Roche, Siemens, Beckman-Coulter, Radiometer, ET Healthcare, Sphingotec, Brava, Quidel, Amgen, Novartis, and Medscape for educational activities.
 

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

The hospital and postdischarge course of patients diagnosed with type 2 myocardial infarction, triggered when myocardial oxygen demand outstrips supply, differs in telling ways from those with the more common atherothrombotic type 1 MI, suggests a new registry analysis that aims to lift a cloud of confusion surrounding their management.

The observational study of more than 250,000 patients with either form of MI, said to be the largest of its kind, points to widespread unfamiliarity with distinctions between the two, and the diagnostic and therapeutic implications of misclassification. It suggests, in particular, that type 2 MI may be grossly underdiagnosed and undertreated.

The minority of patients with type 2 MI were more likely female and to have heart failure (HF), renal disease, valve disease, or atrial fibrillation, and less likely to have a lipid disorder, compared with those with type 1 MI. They were one-fifth as likely to be referred for coronary angiography and 20 times less likely to undergo revascularization.

Indeed, only about 2% of the type 2 cohort ultimately underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass surgery (CABG). Yet the analysis suggests that cardiovascular risk climbs regardless of MI type and that in patients with type 2 MI, coronary revascularization might well cut the risk of death in half over the short term.

There were also disparities in clinical outcomes in the analysis, based on data from the final 3 months of 2017 in the Nationwide Readmissions Database, which reportedly documents almost 60% of hospitalizations in the United States.

For example, those with type 1 or type 2 MI – as characterized in the then-current third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction and today’s UDMI-4 – were comparably at risk for both 30-day all-cause readmission and HF readmission. But type 2 patients were less likely to die in the hospital or be readmitted within 30 days for recurrent MI.
 

Revascularization uncertainty

Importantly, the study’s 3-month observation period immediately followed the debut of a code specifically for type 2 MI in the ICD-10-CM system.

Type 2 accounted for about 15% of MIs during that period, the percentage climbing sharply from the first to the third month. That suggests clinicians were still getting used to the code during the early weeks, “undercoding” for type-2 MI at first but less so after some experience, Cian P. McCarthy, MB, BCh, BAO, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“I can imagine that as people become more aware of the coding, using it more often, the proportion of type 2 MI relative to the total MI cases will probably be much higher,” said McCarthy, lead author on the study published online Feb. 15, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

What had been understood about type 2 MI came largely from single-center studies, he said. This “first national study of type-2 MI in the United States” sought to determine whether such findings are hospital specific or “representative of what people are doing nationally.”

The new analysis largely confirms that patients with type 2 MI are typically burdened with multiple comorbidities, Dr. McCarthy said, but also suggests that type 2 often was, and likely still is, incorrectly classified as type 1. So, it was “surprising” that they were rarely referred for angiography. “Only 1 in 50 received revascularization.”

Those diagnosed with type-2 MI were far less likely to receive coronary angiography (10.9% vs. 57.3%), PCI (1.7% vs. 38.5%), or CABG (0.4% vs. 7.8%) (P < .001 for all three differences), the report noted.

That, Dr. McCarthy said, “clearly shows that clinicians are uncertain about whether revascularization is beneficial” in type 2 MI.
 

Coding not in sync with UDMI

If there is confusion in practice about differentiating type 2 from type 1 MI, it likely has multiple sources, and one may be inconsistencies in how the UDMI and relevant ICD codes are applied in practice.

For example, the coding mandate is always to classify ST-segment elevation MI and non-STEMI as type 1, yet UDMI-4 itself states that a type 2 MI may be either STEMI or non-STEMI, noted Dr. McCarthy, as well as an editorial accompanying the report.

“It also can be difficult at times to distinguish type 2 MI from the diagnosis of myocardial injury,” both of which are partly defined by elevated cardiac troponin (cTn), adds the editorial, from Kristian Thygesen, MD, DSc, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark, and Allan S. Jaffe, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Crucially, but potentially sometimes overlooked, a diagnosis of infarction requires evidence of ischemia along with the biomarker elevation, whereas myocardial injury is defined by raised cTn without evidence of ischemia. Yet there is no ICD-10-CM code for “nonischemic myocardial injury,” Dr. Thygesen and Dr. Jaffe observed.

“Instead, the new ICD-10-CM coding includes a proxy called ‘non-MI troponin elevation due to an underlying cause,’ ” they wrote. “Unfortunately, although some have advocated using this code for myocardial injury, it is not specific for an elevated cTn value and could represent any abnormal laboratory measurements.” The code could be “misleading” and thus worsen the potential for miscoding and “misattribution of MI diagnoses.”

In the current study, 84.6% of the cohort were classified with type 1 MI, 14.8% with type 2, and 0.6% with both types. Of those with type 1 MI, 22.1% had STEMI, 76.4% had non-STEMI with the remainder “unspecified.”

“I think the introduction of ICD codes for type-2 MI is helpful in that we can study type 2 MI more broadly, across institutions, and try and get a better sense of its outcomes and how these patients are treated,” Dr. McCarthy said. But the coding system’s deficiencies may often lead to misclassification of patients. Especially, patients with type 2 STEMI may be miscoded as having type-1 STEMI, and those with only myocardial injury may be miscoded as having type 2 MI.
 

Most type 2 MI is a complication

A profile of patients with type 2 MI may be helpful for making distinctions. The analysis showed that, compared with patients with type 1 MI, they were slightly but significantly older and more likely to have clinical depression, alcohol or other substance abuse disorder, and to be female. They also had more heart failure (27.9% vs. 10.9%), kidney disease (35.7% vs. 25.7%), atrial fibrillation (31% vs. 21%), and anemia (26% vs. 18.9%) (P < .001 for all differences).

Type 2 patients were less likely to have CV risk factors usually associated with plaque instability and atherothrombosis, including a history of smoking, dyslipidemia, MI, PCI, or CABG (P < .001 for all differences), the group noted.

Of the 37,765 patients with type 2 MI, 91% received the diagnosis as secondary to another condition, including sepsis in 24.5%, hypertension in 16.9%, arrhythmias in 6.1%, respiratory failure in 4.3%, and pneumonia in 2.8% of cases.

In multivariate analyses, patients with type 2 MI, compared with type 1, showed lower risks of in-hospital death and readmission for MI within 30 days. Their 30-day risks of readmission from any cause and from MI were similar.

In-hospital mortality was lower for patients with type 2 MI who underwent revascularization, compared with those who did not, “but they were a very select, small proportion of the patient group. I would say there are probably unmeasured confounders,” Dr. McCarthy said.

“There’s a real kind of equipoise, so I think we desperately need a trial to guide us on whether revascularization is beneficial.”

Dr. McCarthy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Thygesen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jaffe disclosed serving as a consultant for Abbott, Roche, Siemens, Beckman-Coulter, Radiometer, ET Healthcare, Sphingotec, Brava, Quidel, Amgen, Novartis, and Medscape for educational activities.
 

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

There are some differences in how women relative to men report symptoms of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but they should not be permitted to get in the way of prompt diagnosis and treatment, according to an expert review at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“We need to get away from the idea that symptoms of a myocardial infarction in women are atypical, because women are also having typical symptoms,” said Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix.
 

Sexes share key symptoms, but not treatment

Although “women are more likely to report additional symptoms,” chest pain “is pretty much equal between men and women” presenting with an ACS, according to Dr. Gulati.

There are several studies that have shown this, including the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI patients (VIRGO). In VIRGO, which looked at ACS symptom presentation in younger patients (ages 18-55 years), 87.0% of women versus 89.5% of men presented with chest pain defined as pain, pressure, tightness, or discomfort.

Even among those who recognize that more women die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) disease than any other cause, nothing seems to erase the bias that women in an ED are less likely than men to be having a heart attack. About 60 million women in the United States have CVD, so no threat imposes a higher toll in morbidity and mortality.

In comparison, there are only about 3.5 million women with breast cancer. Even though this is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in women, it is dwarfed by CVD, according to statistics cited by Dr. Gulati. Yet, the data show women get inferior care by guideline-based standards.

“After a myocardial infarction, women relative to men are less likely to get aspirin or beta-blockers within 24 hours, they are less likely to undergo any type of invasive procedure, and they are less likely to meet the door-to-balloon time or receive any reperfusion therapy,” Dr. Gulati said. After a CVD event, “the only thing women do better is to die.”
 

Additional symptoms may muddy the diagnostic waters

In the setting of ACS, the problem is not that women fail to report symptoms that should lead clinicians to consider CVD, but that they report additional symptoms. For the clinician less inclined to consider CVD in women, particularly younger women, there is a greater risk of going down the wrong diagnostic pathway.

In other words, women report symptoms consistent with CVD, “but it is a question of whether we are hearing it,” Dr. Gulati said.

In the VIRGO study, 61.9% of women versus 54.8% of men (P < .001) presented three or more symptoms in addition to chest pain, such as epigastric symptoms, discomfort in the arms or neck, or palpitations. Women were more likely than men to attribute the symptoms to stress or anxiety (20.9% vs. 11.8%; P < .001), while less likely to consider them a result of muscle pain (15.4% vs. 21.2%; P = .029).

There are other gender differences for ACS. For example, women are more likely than men to presented ischemia without obstruction, but Dr. Gulati emphasized that lack of obstruction is not a reason to dismiss the potential for an underlying CV cause.
 

‘Yentl syndrome’ persists

“Women should not need to present exactly like men to be taken seriously,” she said, describing the “Yentl syndrome,” which now has its own Wikipedia page. A cardiovascular version of this syndrome was first described 30 years ago. Based on a movie of a woman who cross dresses in order to be allowed to undertake Jewish studies, the term captures the societal failure to adapt care for women who do not present disease the same way that men do.

Overall, inadequate urgency to pursue potential symptoms of ACS in women is just another manifestation of the “bikini approach to women’s health,” according to Dr. Gulati. This describes the focus on the breast and reproductive system to the exclusion or other organs and anatomy. Dr. Gulati speculated that this might be the reason that clinicians have failed to apply ACS guidelines to women with the same rigor that they apply to men.

This is hardly a new issue. Calls for improving cardiovascular care in women have been increasing in volume for more than past 20 years, but the issue has proven persistent, according to Dr. Gulati. As an example, she noted that the same types of gaps in care and in outcome reported in a 2008 registry study had not much changed in an article published 8 years later.

The solution is not complex, according to Dr. Gulati. In the ED, guideline-directed diagnostic tests should be offered to any man or woman, including younger women, who present with chest pain, ignoring gender bias that threatens misinterpretation of patient history and symptoms. Once CVD is diagnosed as promptly in women as it is in men, guideline-directed intervention would be expected to reduce the gender gap in outcomes.

“By applying standardized protocols, it will help us to the same for women as we do for men,” Dr. Gulati said.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

There are some differences in how women relative to men report symptoms of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but they should not be permitted to get in the way of prompt diagnosis and treatment, according to an expert review at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“We need to get away from the idea that symptoms of a myocardial infarction in women are atypical, because women are also having typical symptoms,” said Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix.
 

Sexes share key symptoms, but not treatment

Although “women are more likely to report additional symptoms,” chest pain “is pretty much equal between men and women” presenting with an ACS, according to Dr. Gulati.

There are several studies that have shown this, including the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI patients (VIRGO). In VIRGO, which looked at ACS symptom presentation in younger patients (ages 18-55 years), 87.0% of women versus 89.5% of men presented with chest pain defined as pain, pressure, tightness, or discomfort.

Even among those who recognize that more women die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) disease than any other cause, nothing seems to erase the bias that women in an ED are less likely than men to be having a heart attack. About 60 million women in the United States have CVD, so no threat imposes a higher toll in morbidity and mortality.

In comparison, there are only about 3.5 million women with breast cancer. Even though this is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in women, it is dwarfed by CVD, according to statistics cited by Dr. Gulati. Yet, the data show women get inferior care by guideline-based standards.

“After a myocardial infarction, women relative to men are less likely to get aspirin or beta-blockers within 24 hours, they are less likely to undergo any type of invasive procedure, and they are less likely to meet the door-to-balloon time or receive any reperfusion therapy,” Dr. Gulati said. After a CVD event, “the only thing women do better is to die.”
 

Additional symptoms may muddy the diagnostic waters

In the setting of ACS, the problem is not that women fail to report symptoms that should lead clinicians to consider CVD, but that they report additional symptoms. For the clinician less inclined to consider CVD in women, particularly younger women, there is a greater risk of going down the wrong diagnostic pathway.

In other words, women report symptoms consistent with CVD, “but it is a question of whether we are hearing it,” Dr. Gulati said.

In the VIRGO study, 61.9% of women versus 54.8% of men (P < .001) presented three or more symptoms in addition to chest pain, such as epigastric symptoms, discomfort in the arms or neck, or palpitations. Women were more likely than men to attribute the symptoms to stress or anxiety (20.9% vs. 11.8%; P < .001), while less likely to consider them a result of muscle pain (15.4% vs. 21.2%; P = .029).

There are other gender differences for ACS. For example, women are more likely than men to presented ischemia without obstruction, but Dr. Gulati emphasized that lack of obstruction is not a reason to dismiss the potential for an underlying CV cause.
 

‘Yentl syndrome’ persists

“Women should not need to present exactly like men to be taken seriously,” she said, describing the “Yentl syndrome,” which now has its own Wikipedia page. A cardiovascular version of this syndrome was first described 30 years ago. Based on a movie of a woman who cross dresses in order to be allowed to undertake Jewish studies, the term captures the societal failure to adapt care for women who do not present disease the same way that men do.

Overall, inadequate urgency to pursue potential symptoms of ACS in women is just another manifestation of the “bikini approach to women’s health,” according to Dr. Gulati. This describes the focus on the breast and reproductive system to the exclusion or other organs and anatomy. Dr. Gulati speculated that this might be the reason that clinicians have failed to apply ACS guidelines to women with the same rigor that they apply to men.

This is hardly a new issue. Calls for improving cardiovascular care in women have been increasing in volume for more than past 20 years, but the issue has proven persistent, according to Dr. Gulati. As an example, she noted that the same types of gaps in care and in outcome reported in a 2008 registry study had not much changed in an article published 8 years later.

The solution is not complex, according to Dr. Gulati. In the ED, guideline-directed diagnostic tests should be offered to any man or woman, including younger women, who present with chest pain, ignoring gender bias that threatens misinterpretation of patient history and symptoms. Once CVD is diagnosed as promptly in women as it is in men, guideline-directed intervention would be expected to reduce the gender gap in outcomes.

“By applying standardized protocols, it will help us to the same for women as we do for men,” Dr. Gulati said.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

There are some differences in how women relative to men report symptoms of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but they should not be permitted to get in the way of prompt diagnosis and treatment, according to an expert review at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“We need to get away from the idea that symptoms of a myocardial infarction in women are atypical, because women are also having typical symptoms,” said Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix.
 

Sexes share key symptoms, but not treatment

Although “women are more likely to report additional symptoms,” chest pain “is pretty much equal between men and women” presenting with an ACS, according to Dr. Gulati.

There are several studies that have shown this, including the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI patients (VIRGO). In VIRGO, which looked at ACS symptom presentation in younger patients (ages 18-55 years), 87.0% of women versus 89.5% of men presented with chest pain defined as pain, pressure, tightness, or discomfort.

Even among those who recognize that more women die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) disease than any other cause, nothing seems to erase the bias that women in an ED are less likely than men to be having a heart attack. About 60 million women in the United States have CVD, so no threat imposes a higher toll in morbidity and mortality.

In comparison, there are only about 3.5 million women with breast cancer. Even though this is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in women, it is dwarfed by CVD, according to statistics cited by Dr. Gulati. Yet, the data show women get inferior care by guideline-based standards.

“After a myocardial infarction, women relative to men are less likely to get aspirin or beta-blockers within 24 hours, they are less likely to undergo any type of invasive procedure, and they are less likely to meet the door-to-balloon time or receive any reperfusion therapy,” Dr. Gulati said. After a CVD event, “the only thing women do better is to die.”
 

Additional symptoms may muddy the diagnostic waters

In the setting of ACS, the problem is not that women fail to report symptoms that should lead clinicians to consider CVD, but that they report additional symptoms. For the clinician less inclined to consider CVD in women, particularly younger women, there is a greater risk of going down the wrong diagnostic pathway.

In other words, women report symptoms consistent with CVD, “but it is a question of whether we are hearing it,” Dr. Gulati said.

In the VIRGO study, 61.9% of women versus 54.8% of men (P < .001) presented three or more symptoms in addition to chest pain, such as epigastric symptoms, discomfort in the arms or neck, or palpitations. Women were more likely than men to attribute the symptoms to stress or anxiety (20.9% vs. 11.8%; P < .001), while less likely to consider them a result of muscle pain (15.4% vs. 21.2%; P = .029).

There are other gender differences for ACS. For example, women are more likely than men to presented ischemia without obstruction, but Dr. Gulati emphasized that lack of obstruction is not a reason to dismiss the potential for an underlying CV cause.
 

‘Yentl syndrome’ persists

“Women should not need to present exactly like men to be taken seriously,” she said, describing the “Yentl syndrome,” which now has its own Wikipedia page. A cardiovascular version of this syndrome was first described 30 years ago. Based on a movie of a woman who cross dresses in order to be allowed to undertake Jewish studies, the term captures the societal failure to adapt care for women who do not present disease the same way that men do.

Overall, inadequate urgency to pursue potential symptoms of ACS in women is just another manifestation of the “bikini approach to women’s health,” according to Dr. Gulati. This describes the focus on the breast and reproductive system to the exclusion or other organs and anatomy. Dr. Gulati speculated that this might be the reason that clinicians have failed to apply ACS guidelines to women with the same rigor that they apply to men.

This is hardly a new issue. Calls for improving cardiovascular care in women have been increasing in volume for more than past 20 years, but the issue has proven persistent, according to Dr. Gulati. As an example, she noted that the same types of gaps in care and in outcome reported in a 2008 registry study had not much changed in an article published 8 years later.

The solution is not complex, according to Dr. Gulati. In the ED, guideline-directed diagnostic tests should be offered to any man or woman, including younger women, who present with chest pain, ignoring gender bias that threatens misinterpretation of patient history and symptoms. Once CVD is diagnosed as promptly in women as it is in men, guideline-directed intervention would be expected to reduce the gender gap in outcomes.

“By applying standardized protocols, it will help us to the same for women as we do for men,” Dr. Gulati said.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.

Photo by Jimmy Hamelin

As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.

But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.

Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”

When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).

Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.

“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.

“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.

“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”

The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.

Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.

“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”

Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”

Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.

“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”

According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.

Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”

The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.

The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”

Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”

The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.

The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.

Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”

Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”

He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.

“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”

Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.

“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
 

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

Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.

Photo by Jimmy Hamelin

As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.

But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.

Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”

When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).

Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.

“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.

“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.

“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”

The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.

Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.

“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”

Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”

Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.

“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”

According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.

Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”

The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.

The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”

Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”

The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.

The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.

Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”

Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”

He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.

“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”

Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.

“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
 

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

Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.

Photo by Jimmy Hamelin

As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.

But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.

Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”

When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).

Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.

“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.

“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.

“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”

The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.

Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.

“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”

Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”

Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.

“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”

According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.

Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”

The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.

The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”

Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”

The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.

The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.

Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”

Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”

He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.

“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”

Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.

“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

Daily treatment with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) led to more malignancies and adverse cardiovascular events in older rheumatoid arthritis patients compared with treatment with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to the partial results of a safety study announced last week by Pfizer.

The postmarketing study known as ORAL Surveillance began in 2014 to evaluate the safety of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib compared to a TNF inhibitor in RA patients 50 years of age or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Its 4,362 participants were randomized to either daily doses of 5 mg (n = 1,455) or 10 mg (n = 1,456) of tofacitinib or the TNFi (n = 1,451), which was adalimumab for patients in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, and etanercept elsewhere. During analysis, adverse events were pooled for all patients on tofacitinib.

Overall, 135 patients developed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and 164 developed malignancies – excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The incidence of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNFi group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09). The rate of MACE was also higher in the combined tofacitinib group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.91-1.94). Both rates for tofacitinib did not meet the trial’s noninferiority criteria.

Among the patients on tofacitinib, the most reported MACE was myocardial infarction and the most reported malignancy was lung cancer. Study participants with noted risk factors – including older age and smoking – were more likely to experience adverse events.

In February 2019, patients in the 10-mg tofacitinib group were switched to the 5-mg because of a safety signal indicating increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death.

Tofacitinib was approved for RA in November 2012, though concerns about serious side effects had been noted during clinical trials and a boxed warning was ultimately added to the drug’s label. Tofacitinib is also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Other JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib and upadacitinib have been approved for RA in the interim as well, though the higher dose of baricitinib was rejected in committee because of safety concerns and both their boxes also warn against infections, thrombosis, and cancer.

A postmarketing safety study on baricitinib is expected to be completed in 2025.

The full results of the ORAL Surveillance study – which should address safety regarding pulmonary embolism and mortality, as well as efficacy data – have not yet been released. “Pfizer is working with the [FDA] and other regulatory agencies to review the full results and analyses as they become available,” the press release said.

Daily treatment with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) led to more malignancies and adverse cardiovascular events in older rheumatoid arthritis patients compared with treatment with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to the partial results of a safety study announced last week by Pfizer.

The postmarketing study known as ORAL Surveillance began in 2014 to evaluate the safety of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib compared to a TNF inhibitor in RA patients 50 years of age or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Its 4,362 participants were randomized to either daily doses of 5 mg (n = 1,455) or 10 mg (n = 1,456) of tofacitinib or the TNFi (n = 1,451), which was adalimumab for patients in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, and etanercept elsewhere. During analysis, adverse events were pooled for all patients on tofacitinib.

Overall, 135 patients developed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and 164 developed malignancies – excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The incidence of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNFi group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09). The rate of MACE was also higher in the combined tofacitinib group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.91-1.94). Both rates for tofacitinib did not meet the trial’s noninferiority criteria.

Among the patients on tofacitinib, the most reported MACE was myocardial infarction and the most reported malignancy was lung cancer. Study participants with noted risk factors – including older age and smoking – were more likely to experience adverse events.

In February 2019, patients in the 10-mg tofacitinib group were switched to the 5-mg because of a safety signal indicating increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death.

Tofacitinib was approved for RA in November 2012, though concerns about serious side effects had been noted during clinical trials and a boxed warning was ultimately added to the drug’s label. Tofacitinib is also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Other JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib and upadacitinib have been approved for RA in the interim as well, though the higher dose of baricitinib was rejected in committee because of safety concerns and both their boxes also warn against infections, thrombosis, and cancer.

A postmarketing safety study on baricitinib is expected to be completed in 2025.

The full results of the ORAL Surveillance study – which should address safety regarding pulmonary embolism and mortality, as well as efficacy data – have not yet been released. “Pfizer is working with the [FDA] and other regulatory agencies to review the full results and analyses as they become available,” the press release said.

Daily treatment with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) led to more malignancies and adverse cardiovascular events in older rheumatoid arthritis patients compared with treatment with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to the partial results of a safety study announced last week by Pfizer.

The postmarketing study known as ORAL Surveillance began in 2014 to evaluate the safety of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib compared to a TNF inhibitor in RA patients 50 years of age or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Its 4,362 participants were randomized to either daily doses of 5 mg (n = 1,455) or 10 mg (n = 1,456) of tofacitinib or the TNFi (n = 1,451), which was adalimumab for patients in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, and etanercept elsewhere. During analysis, adverse events were pooled for all patients on tofacitinib.

Overall, 135 patients developed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and 164 developed malignancies – excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The incidence of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNFi group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09). The rate of MACE was also higher in the combined tofacitinib group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.91-1.94). Both rates for tofacitinib did not meet the trial’s noninferiority criteria.

Among the patients on tofacitinib, the most reported MACE was myocardial infarction and the most reported malignancy was lung cancer. Study participants with noted risk factors – including older age and smoking – were more likely to experience adverse events.

In February 2019, patients in the 10-mg tofacitinib group were switched to the 5-mg because of a safety signal indicating increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death.

Tofacitinib was approved for RA in November 2012, though concerns about serious side effects had been noted during clinical trials and a boxed warning was ultimately added to the drug’s label. Tofacitinib is also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Other JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib and upadacitinib have been approved for RA in the interim as well, though the higher dose of baricitinib was rejected in committee because of safety concerns and both their boxes also warn against infections, thrombosis, and cancer.

A postmarketing safety study on baricitinib is expected to be completed in 2025.

The full results of the ORAL Surveillance study – which should address safety regarding pulmonary embolism and mortality, as well as efficacy data – have not yet been released. “Pfizer is working with the [FDA] and other regulatory agencies to review the full results and analyses as they become available,” the press release said.

While the direct toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is being tallied and shared on the nightly news, the indirect effects will undoubtedly take years to fully measure.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In two papers published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers have started the process of quantifying the impact of the pandemic on the care of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

In the first study, Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, and colleagues from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston examined population-level data to determine how deaths from cardiovascular causes changed in the United States in the early months of the pandemic relative to the same periods in 2019.

In a second paper, Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital and colleagues looked at the pandemic’s international impact on the diagnosis of heart disease.

Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Wadhera and colleagues compared death rates from cardiovascular causes in the United States from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, (the first wave of the pandemic) and from Jan. 1, 2020, to March 17, 2020, (the period just before the pandemic started) and compared them to the same periods in 2019. ICD codes were used to identify underlying causes of death.

Relative to 2019, they found a significant increase in deaths from ischemic heart disease nationally (1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18), as well as an increase in deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). There was no apparent increase in deaths from heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system.

When they looked just at New York City, the area hit hardest during the early part of the pandemic, the relative increases in deaths from ischemic heart disease were more pronounced.

Deaths from ischemic heart disease or hypertensive diseases jumped 139% and 164%, respectively, between March 18, 2020, and June 2, 2020.

More modest increases in deaths were seen in the remainder of New York state, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois, while Massachusetts and Louisiana did not see a change in cardiovascular deaths.

Several studies from different parts of the world have indicated a 40%-50% drop in hospitalization for myocardial infarction in the initial months of the pandemic, said Dr. Wadhera in an interview.

“We wanted to understand where did all the heart attacks go? And we worried that patients with urgent heart conditions were not seeking the medical care they needed. I think our data suggest that this may have been the case,” reported Dr. Wadhera.  

“This very much reflects the reality of what we’re seeing on the ground,” he told this news organization. “After the initial surge ended, when hospital volumes began to return to normal, we saw patients come into the hospital who clearly had a heart attack during the surge months – and were now experiencing complications of that event – because they had initially not come into the hospital due to concerns about exposure to the virus.”

A limitation of their data, he stressed, is whether some deaths coded as CVD deaths were really deaths from undiagnosed COVID-19. “It’s possible that some portion of the increased deaths we observed really reflect the cardiovascular complications of undiagnosed COVID-19, because we know that testing was quite limited during the early first surge of cases.”

“I think that basically three factors – patients avoiding the health care system because of fear of getting COVID, health care systems being strained and overwhelmed leading to the deferral of cardiovascular care and semi-elective procedures, and the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 itself – all probably collectively contributed to the rise in cardiovascular deaths that we observed,” said Dr. Wadhera.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael N. Young, MD, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write that these data, taken together with an earlier study showing an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at the pandemic peak in New York City, “support the notion of excess fatalities due to unattended comorbid illnesses.” That said, attribution of death in the COVID era “remains problematic.”

In the second article, Andrew Einstein, MD, PhD, and the INCAPS COVID Investigators Group took a broader approach and looked at the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac diagnostic procedures in over 100 countries.

The INCAPS (International Atomic Energy Agency Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study) group has for the past decade conducted numerous studies addressing the use of best practices and worldwide practice variation in CVD diagnosis.

For this effort, they sent a survey link to INCAPS participants worldwide, ultimately including 909 survey responses from 108 countries in the final analysis.

Compared with March 2019, overall procedure volume decreased 42% in March 2020 and 64% in April 2020.

The greatest decreases were seen in stress testing (78%) and transesophageal echocardiography (76%), both procedures, noted Dr. Einstein, associated with a greater risk of aerosolization.

“Whether as we reset after COVID we return to the same place in terms of the use of cardiovascular diagnostic testing remains to be seen, but it certainly poses an opportunity to improve our utilization of various modes of testing,” said Dr. Einstein.

Using regression analysis, Dr. Einstein and colleagues were able to see that sites located in low-income and lower-middle-income countries saw an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and telehealth.

Fifty-two percent of survey respondents reported significant shortages of N95 masks early in the pandemic, with fewer issues in supplies of gloves, gowns, and face shields. Lower-income countries were more likely to face significant PPE shortages and less likely to be able to implement telehealth strategies to make up for reduced in-person care. PPE shortage itself, however, was not related to lower procedural volume on multivariable regression.

“It all really begs the question of whether there is more that the world can do to help out the developing world in terms of managing the pandemic in all its facets,” said Dr. Einstein in an interview, adding he was “shocked” to learn how difficult it was for some lower-income countries to get sufficient PPE.
 

Did shutdowns go too far?

Calling this a “remarkable study,” an editorial written by Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, PhD, John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, and Salim Yusuf, MBBS, DPhil, all from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., suggests that perhaps health systems in some places went too far in closing down during the first wave of the pandemic, naming specifically Canada, Eastern Europe, and Saudi Arabia as examples.

“Although these measures were taken to prepare for the worst, overwhelming numbers of patients with COVID-19 did not materialize during the first wave of the pandemic in these countries. It is possible that delaying so-called nonessential services may have been unnecessary and potentially harmful, because it likely led to delays in providing care for the treatment of serious non–COVID-19 illnesses.”

Since then, more experience and more data have largely allowed hospital systems to “tackle the ebb and flow” of COVID-19 cases in ways that limit shutdowns of important health services, they said.

Given the more pronounced effect in low- and middle-income countries, they stressed the need to focus resources on ways to promote prevention and treatment that do not rely on diagnostic procedures.

“This calls for more emphasis on developing efficient systems of telehealth, especially in poorer countries or in remote settings in all countries,” Dr. Leong and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Wadhera has reported research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, along with fellow senior author Robert W. Yeh, MD, MBA, who has also received personal fees and grants from several companies not related to the submitted work. Dr. Einstein, Dr. Leong, Dr. Eikelboom, and Dr. Yusuf have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

While the direct toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is being tallied and shared on the nightly news, the indirect effects will undoubtedly take years to fully measure.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In two papers published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers have started the process of quantifying the impact of the pandemic on the care of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

In the first study, Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, and colleagues from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston examined population-level data to determine how deaths from cardiovascular causes changed in the United States in the early months of the pandemic relative to the same periods in 2019.

In a second paper, Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital and colleagues looked at the pandemic’s international impact on the diagnosis of heart disease.

Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Wadhera and colleagues compared death rates from cardiovascular causes in the United States from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, (the first wave of the pandemic) and from Jan. 1, 2020, to March 17, 2020, (the period just before the pandemic started) and compared them to the same periods in 2019. ICD codes were used to identify underlying causes of death.

Relative to 2019, they found a significant increase in deaths from ischemic heart disease nationally (1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18), as well as an increase in deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). There was no apparent increase in deaths from heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system.

When they looked just at New York City, the area hit hardest during the early part of the pandemic, the relative increases in deaths from ischemic heart disease were more pronounced.

Deaths from ischemic heart disease or hypertensive diseases jumped 139% and 164%, respectively, between March 18, 2020, and June 2, 2020.

More modest increases in deaths were seen in the remainder of New York state, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois, while Massachusetts and Louisiana did not see a change in cardiovascular deaths.

Several studies from different parts of the world have indicated a 40%-50% drop in hospitalization for myocardial infarction in the initial months of the pandemic, said Dr. Wadhera in an interview.

“We wanted to understand where did all the heart attacks go? And we worried that patients with urgent heart conditions were not seeking the medical care they needed. I think our data suggest that this may have been the case,” reported Dr. Wadhera.  

“This very much reflects the reality of what we’re seeing on the ground,” he told this news organization. “After the initial surge ended, when hospital volumes began to return to normal, we saw patients come into the hospital who clearly had a heart attack during the surge months – and were now experiencing complications of that event – because they had initially not come into the hospital due to concerns about exposure to the virus.”

A limitation of their data, he stressed, is whether some deaths coded as CVD deaths were really deaths from undiagnosed COVID-19. “It’s possible that some portion of the increased deaths we observed really reflect the cardiovascular complications of undiagnosed COVID-19, because we know that testing was quite limited during the early first surge of cases.”

“I think that basically three factors – patients avoiding the health care system because of fear of getting COVID, health care systems being strained and overwhelmed leading to the deferral of cardiovascular care and semi-elective procedures, and the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 itself – all probably collectively contributed to the rise in cardiovascular deaths that we observed,” said Dr. Wadhera.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael N. Young, MD, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write that these data, taken together with an earlier study showing an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at the pandemic peak in New York City, “support the notion of excess fatalities due to unattended comorbid illnesses.” That said, attribution of death in the COVID era “remains problematic.”

In the second article, Andrew Einstein, MD, PhD, and the INCAPS COVID Investigators Group took a broader approach and looked at the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac diagnostic procedures in over 100 countries.

The INCAPS (International Atomic Energy Agency Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study) group has for the past decade conducted numerous studies addressing the use of best practices and worldwide practice variation in CVD diagnosis.

For this effort, they sent a survey link to INCAPS participants worldwide, ultimately including 909 survey responses from 108 countries in the final analysis.

Compared with March 2019, overall procedure volume decreased 42% in March 2020 and 64% in April 2020.

The greatest decreases were seen in stress testing (78%) and transesophageal echocardiography (76%), both procedures, noted Dr. Einstein, associated with a greater risk of aerosolization.

“Whether as we reset after COVID we return to the same place in terms of the use of cardiovascular diagnostic testing remains to be seen, but it certainly poses an opportunity to improve our utilization of various modes of testing,” said Dr. Einstein.

Using regression analysis, Dr. Einstein and colleagues were able to see that sites located in low-income and lower-middle-income countries saw an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and telehealth.

Fifty-two percent of survey respondents reported significant shortages of N95 masks early in the pandemic, with fewer issues in supplies of gloves, gowns, and face shields. Lower-income countries were more likely to face significant PPE shortages and less likely to be able to implement telehealth strategies to make up for reduced in-person care. PPE shortage itself, however, was not related to lower procedural volume on multivariable regression.

“It all really begs the question of whether there is more that the world can do to help out the developing world in terms of managing the pandemic in all its facets,” said Dr. Einstein in an interview, adding he was “shocked” to learn how difficult it was for some lower-income countries to get sufficient PPE.
 

Did shutdowns go too far?

Calling this a “remarkable study,” an editorial written by Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, PhD, John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, and Salim Yusuf, MBBS, DPhil, all from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., suggests that perhaps health systems in some places went too far in closing down during the first wave of the pandemic, naming specifically Canada, Eastern Europe, and Saudi Arabia as examples.

“Although these measures were taken to prepare for the worst, overwhelming numbers of patients with COVID-19 did not materialize during the first wave of the pandemic in these countries. It is possible that delaying so-called nonessential services may have been unnecessary and potentially harmful, because it likely led to delays in providing care for the treatment of serious non–COVID-19 illnesses.”

Since then, more experience and more data have largely allowed hospital systems to “tackle the ebb and flow” of COVID-19 cases in ways that limit shutdowns of important health services, they said.

Given the more pronounced effect in low- and middle-income countries, they stressed the need to focus resources on ways to promote prevention and treatment that do not rely on diagnostic procedures.

“This calls for more emphasis on developing efficient systems of telehealth, especially in poorer countries or in remote settings in all countries,” Dr. Leong and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Wadhera has reported research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, along with fellow senior author Robert W. Yeh, MD, MBA, who has also received personal fees and grants from several companies not related to the submitted work. Dr. Einstein, Dr. Leong, Dr. Eikelboom, and Dr. Yusuf have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

While the direct toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is being tallied and shared on the nightly news, the indirect effects will undoubtedly take years to fully measure.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In two papers published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers have started the process of quantifying the impact of the pandemic on the care of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

In the first study, Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, and colleagues from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston examined population-level data to determine how deaths from cardiovascular causes changed in the United States in the early months of the pandemic relative to the same periods in 2019.

In a second paper, Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital and colleagues looked at the pandemic’s international impact on the diagnosis of heart disease.

Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Wadhera and colleagues compared death rates from cardiovascular causes in the United States from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, (the first wave of the pandemic) and from Jan. 1, 2020, to March 17, 2020, (the period just before the pandemic started) and compared them to the same periods in 2019. ICD codes were used to identify underlying causes of death.

Relative to 2019, they found a significant increase in deaths from ischemic heart disease nationally (1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18), as well as an increase in deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). There was no apparent increase in deaths from heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system.

When they looked just at New York City, the area hit hardest during the early part of the pandemic, the relative increases in deaths from ischemic heart disease were more pronounced.

Deaths from ischemic heart disease or hypertensive diseases jumped 139% and 164%, respectively, between March 18, 2020, and June 2, 2020.

More modest increases in deaths were seen in the remainder of New York state, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois, while Massachusetts and Louisiana did not see a change in cardiovascular deaths.

Several studies from different parts of the world have indicated a 40%-50% drop in hospitalization for myocardial infarction in the initial months of the pandemic, said Dr. Wadhera in an interview.

“We wanted to understand where did all the heart attacks go? And we worried that patients with urgent heart conditions were not seeking the medical care they needed. I think our data suggest that this may have been the case,” reported Dr. Wadhera.  

“This very much reflects the reality of what we’re seeing on the ground,” he told this news organization. “After the initial surge ended, when hospital volumes began to return to normal, we saw patients come into the hospital who clearly had a heart attack during the surge months – and were now experiencing complications of that event – because they had initially not come into the hospital due to concerns about exposure to the virus.”

A limitation of their data, he stressed, is whether some deaths coded as CVD deaths were really deaths from undiagnosed COVID-19. “It’s possible that some portion of the increased deaths we observed really reflect the cardiovascular complications of undiagnosed COVID-19, because we know that testing was quite limited during the early first surge of cases.”

“I think that basically three factors – patients avoiding the health care system because of fear of getting COVID, health care systems being strained and overwhelmed leading to the deferral of cardiovascular care and semi-elective procedures, and the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 itself – all probably collectively contributed to the rise in cardiovascular deaths that we observed,” said Dr. Wadhera.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael N. Young, MD, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write that these data, taken together with an earlier study showing an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at the pandemic peak in New York City, “support the notion of excess fatalities due to unattended comorbid illnesses.” That said, attribution of death in the COVID era “remains problematic.”

In the second article, Andrew Einstein, MD, PhD, and the INCAPS COVID Investigators Group took a broader approach and looked at the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac diagnostic procedures in over 100 countries.

The INCAPS (International Atomic Energy Agency Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study) group has for the past decade conducted numerous studies addressing the use of best practices and worldwide practice variation in CVD diagnosis.

For this effort, they sent a survey link to INCAPS participants worldwide, ultimately including 909 survey responses from 108 countries in the final analysis.

Compared with March 2019, overall procedure volume decreased 42% in March 2020 and 64% in April 2020.

The greatest decreases were seen in stress testing (78%) and transesophageal echocardiography (76%), both procedures, noted Dr. Einstein, associated with a greater risk of aerosolization.

“Whether as we reset after COVID we return to the same place in terms of the use of cardiovascular diagnostic testing remains to be seen, but it certainly poses an opportunity to improve our utilization of various modes of testing,” said Dr. Einstein.

Using regression analysis, Dr. Einstein and colleagues were able to see that sites located in low-income and lower-middle-income countries saw an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and telehealth.

Fifty-two percent of survey respondents reported significant shortages of N95 masks early in the pandemic, with fewer issues in supplies of gloves, gowns, and face shields. Lower-income countries were more likely to face significant PPE shortages and less likely to be able to implement telehealth strategies to make up for reduced in-person care. PPE shortage itself, however, was not related to lower procedural volume on multivariable regression.

“It all really begs the question of whether there is more that the world can do to help out the developing world in terms of managing the pandemic in all its facets,” said Dr. Einstein in an interview, adding he was “shocked” to learn how difficult it was for some lower-income countries to get sufficient PPE.
 

Did shutdowns go too far?

Calling this a “remarkable study,” an editorial written by Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, PhD, John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, and Salim Yusuf, MBBS, DPhil, all from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., suggests that perhaps health systems in some places went too far in closing down during the first wave of the pandemic, naming specifically Canada, Eastern Europe, and Saudi Arabia as examples.

“Although these measures were taken to prepare for the worst, overwhelming numbers of patients with COVID-19 did not materialize during the first wave of the pandemic in these countries. It is possible that delaying so-called nonessential services may have been unnecessary and potentially harmful, because it likely led to delays in providing care for the treatment of serious non–COVID-19 illnesses.”

Since then, more experience and more data have largely allowed hospital systems to “tackle the ebb and flow” of COVID-19 cases in ways that limit shutdowns of important health services, they said.

Given the more pronounced effect in low- and middle-income countries, they stressed the need to focus resources on ways to promote prevention and treatment that do not rely on diagnostic procedures.

“This calls for more emphasis on developing efficient systems of telehealth, especially in poorer countries or in remote settings in all countries,” Dr. Leong and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Wadhera has reported research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, along with fellow senior author Robert W. Yeh, MD, MBA, who has also received personal fees and grants from several companies not related to the submitted work. Dr. Einstein, Dr. Leong, Dr. Eikelboom, and Dr. Yusuf have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Cardiology has released a new expert consensus decision pathway to provide practical guidance on same-day discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

“There’s been a lot of interest in people wanting to start these programs, so we thought this is an ideal topic for a consensus pathway that will help programs that want to implement these things – give them kind of a road map for how to do that,” writing committee chair Sunil Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said.

Although the document reviews the evidence supporting same-day discharge much like a guideline, the focus is on implementation, he said in an interview. It features a checklist of patient- and systems-specific considerations along with key definitions and a series of clinical scenarios showing the rationale for same-day discharge or overnight monitoring.

The checklist can be used for anyone presenting for an elective PCI or for ad hoc cases that flow directly from the diagnostic cath lab and make up about 80% of procedures. It is not applicable for those presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI, but can be used for staged procedures performed after their index PCI, according to the report, published online Jan. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

When establishing a new same-day discharge program, the basic approach can be distilled down to the “three Ps”– the patient, the procedure, and the program – Dr. Rao explained. The patient has to be the right patient, be willing to go home that night, and have some kind of support structure at home in case they run into trouble. The procedure itself should be without complications and the recovery unremarkable, with a stable access site and a return to baseline mental status and ambulation. Finally, “this all has to take place in the context of a program with buy-in from the different stakeholders,” he said.

The report points out that the need for administrative buy-in “should not be underestimated” and recommends physician-champions meet with staff administrators to present the data on PCI utility and safety and to communicate the need for staff to complete the checklist.

Implementing the checklist also requires buy-in from nurses and other team members who may be tasked with educating patients on issues like access site complications and ensuring they receive relevant discharge information, a loading dose of a P2Y12 inhibitor, and appropriate prescriptions.

“If you’re only going to observe the patient for 6 hours, you’ve got to make sure that they’re on all the secondary prevention medications and the referral to cardiac rehabilitation takes place,” Dr. Rao said. “So I think that, in a funny way, the implementation of same-day discharge allows us to actually focus a little bit more on these kinds of postprocedure aspects that I think we were taking for granted a little bit when patients were being observed overnight.”

The checklist is detailed but was designed so it can be tailored to the needs of individual institutions, writing committee member Connie N. Hess, MD, MHS, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, pointed out.

“At every level there is a lot of variance in institutional resources or even a patient’s resources,” she said. “So we didn’t want to seem too prescriptive.”

Some institutions, for example, may feel strongly that accessibility to a caregiver means someone staying in the house who can monitor the patient’s access site and call 911 if need be, whereas others may define it as having a neighbor who’s easy to reach by phone, Dr. Hess noted in an interview.

Exactly when the last patient can be eligible for same-day discharge may also vary between urban and rural settings where patients may drive hours for their care. The built-in flexibility also allows institutions to incorporate their own preexisting documents into the checklist.

“I don’t think the hospital buy-in is necessarily the hard part because there is a clear monetary benefit as long as you can show that it’s done safely and you’re not harming patients, which I think has been done,” Dr. Hess said. “I think then the next level down, you have the provider buy-in and that may be where there might be a little bit more work depending on the preexisting culture.”

Part of the hesitancy may reflect a generational gap, whereby younger interventionalists who trained in programs with same-day discharge may be more willing to support the checklist.

“This actually parallels radial artery access where data exists on its benefits but it’s not used,” Dr. Hess said. “And I think a lot of this has to do with provider comfort levels with sending patients home and just not necessarily knowing how to implement a program at their institution.”

Both Dr. Rao and Dr. Hess pointed out that uptake of same-day discharge PCI is low in the United States, compared with other part of the world, including the United Kingdom, with estimates at about 16%-20% of PCIs.

That said, the timing of the new expert consensus document is “fortuitous,” Dr. Rao noted. Since work on the document began 2 years ago, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ greenlit reimbursement for PCI performed in an ambulatory surgical center and the pandemic walloped U.S. hospitals. “I think those two things really do highlight the importance of a document like this.”

“A potential advantage of the same-day discharge program is that you won’t be exposing patients to the hospital setting where COVID is a problem, and you’ll keep your beds open for the COVID patients that really do need it,” he said.

The ability to go home without an overnight stay may also encourage some patients to seek care. “Patients with cardiovascular disease really need to understand that you may be stable at one point but then obviously can become unstable, and we don’t want people to stay away from the hospital because they are worried about being admitted,” Dr. Rao said.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hess report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The American College of Cardiology has released a new expert consensus decision pathway to provide practical guidance on same-day discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

“There’s been a lot of interest in people wanting to start these programs, so we thought this is an ideal topic for a consensus pathway that will help programs that want to implement these things – give them kind of a road map for how to do that,” writing committee chair Sunil Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said.

Although the document reviews the evidence supporting same-day discharge much like a guideline, the focus is on implementation, he said in an interview. It features a checklist of patient- and systems-specific considerations along with key definitions and a series of clinical scenarios showing the rationale for same-day discharge or overnight monitoring.

The checklist can be used for anyone presenting for an elective PCI or for ad hoc cases that flow directly from the diagnostic cath lab and make up about 80% of procedures. It is not applicable for those presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI, but can be used for staged procedures performed after their index PCI, according to the report, published online Jan. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

When establishing a new same-day discharge program, the basic approach can be distilled down to the “three Ps”– the patient, the procedure, and the program – Dr. Rao explained. The patient has to be the right patient, be willing to go home that night, and have some kind of support structure at home in case they run into trouble. The procedure itself should be without complications and the recovery unremarkable, with a stable access site and a return to baseline mental status and ambulation. Finally, “this all has to take place in the context of a program with buy-in from the different stakeholders,” he said.

The report points out that the need for administrative buy-in “should not be underestimated” and recommends physician-champions meet with staff administrators to present the data on PCI utility and safety and to communicate the need for staff to complete the checklist.

Implementing the checklist also requires buy-in from nurses and other team members who may be tasked with educating patients on issues like access site complications and ensuring they receive relevant discharge information, a loading dose of a P2Y12 inhibitor, and appropriate prescriptions.

“If you’re only going to observe the patient for 6 hours, you’ve got to make sure that they’re on all the secondary prevention medications and the referral to cardiac rehabilitation takes place,” Dr. Rao said. “So I think that, in a funny way, the implementation of same-day discharge allows us to actually focus a little bit more on these kinds of postprocedure aspects that I think we were taking for granted a little bit when patients were being observed overnight.”

The checklist is detailed but was designed so it can be tailored to the needs of individual institutions, writing committee member Connie N. Hess, MD, MHS, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, pointed out.

“At every level there is a lot of variance in institutional resources or even a patient’s resources,” she said. “So we didn’t want to seem too prescriptive.”

Some institutions, for example, may feel strongly that accessibility to a caregiver means someone staying in the house who can monitor the patient’s access site and call 911 if need be, whereas others may define it as having a neighbor who’s easy to reach by phone, Dr. Hess noted in an interview.

Exactly when the last patient can be eligible for same-day discharge may also vary between urban and rural settings where patients may drive hours for their care. The built-in flexibility also allows institutions to incorporate their own preexisting documents into the checklist.

“I don’t think the hospital buy-in is necessarily the hard part because there is a clear monetary benefit as long as you can show that it’s done safely and you’re not harming patients, which I think has been done,” Dr. Hess said. “I think then the next level down, you have the provider buy-in and that may be where there might be a little bit more work depending on the preexisting culture.”

Part of the hesitancy may reflect a generational gap, whereby younger interventionalists who trained in programs with same-day discharge may be more willing to support the checklist.

“This actually parallels radial artery access where data exists on its benefits but it’s not used,” Dr. Hess said. “And I think a lot of this has to do with provider comfort levels with sending patients home and just not necessarily knowing how to implement a program at their institution.”

Both Dr. Rao and Dr. Hess pointed out that uptake of same-day discharge PCI is low in the United States, compared with other part of the world, including the United Kingdom, with estimates at about 16%-20% of PCIs.

That said, the timing of the new expert consensus document is “fortuitous,” Dr. Rao noted. Since work on the document began 2 years ago, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ greenlit reimbursement for PCI performed in an ambulatory surgical center and the pandemic walloped U.S. hospitals. “I think those two things really do highlight the importance of a document like this.”

“A potential advantage of the same-day discharge program is that you won’t be exposing patients to the hospital setting where COVID is a problem, and you’ll keep your beds open for the COVID patients that really do need it,” he said.

The ability to go home without an overnight stay may also encourage some patients to seek care. “Patients with cardiovascular disease really need to understand that you may be stable at one point but then obviously can become unstable, and we don’t want people to stay away from the hospital because they are worried about being admitted,” Dr. Rao said.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hess report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The American College of Cardiology has released a new expert consensus decision pathway to provide practical guidance on same-day discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

“There’s been a lot of interest in people wanting to start these programs, so we thought this is an ideal topic for a consensus pathway that will help programs that want to implement these things – give them kind of a road map for how to do that,” writing committee chair Sunil Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said.

Although the document reviews the evidence supporting same-day discharge much like a guideline, the focus is on implementation, he said in an interview. It features a checklist of patient- and systems-specific considerations along with key definitions and a series of clinical scenarios showing the rationale for same-day discharge or overnight monitoring.

The checklist can be used for anyone presenting for an elective PCI or for ad hoc cases that flow directly from the diagnostic cath lab and make up about 80% of procedures. It is not applicable for those presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI, but can be used for staged procedures performed after their index PCI, according to the report, published online Jan. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

When establishing a new same-day discharge program, the basic approach can be distilled down to the “three Ps”– the patient, the procedure, and the program – Dr. Rao explained. The patient has to be the right patient, be willing to go home that night, and have some kind of support structure at home in case they run into trouble. The procedure itself should be without complications and the recovery unremarkable, with a stable access site and a return to baseline mental status and ambulation. Finally, “this all has to take place in the context of a program with buy-in from the different stakeholders,” he said.

The report points out that the need for administrative buy-in “should not be underestimated” and recommends physician-champions meet with staff administrators to present the data on PCI utility and safety and to communicate the need for staff to complete the checklist.

Implementing the checklist also requires buy-in from nurses and other team members who may be tasked with educating patients on issues like access site complications and ensuring they receive relevant discharge information, a loading dose of a P2Y12 inhibitor, and appropriate prescriptions.

“If you’re only going to observe the patient for 6 hours, you’ve got to make sure that they’re on all the secondary prevention medications and the referral to cardiac rehabilitation takes place,” Dr. Rao said. “So I think that, in a funny way, the implementation of same-day discharge allows us to actually focus a little bit more on these kinds of postprocedure aspects that I think we were taking for granted a little bit when patients were being observed overnight.”

The checklist is detailed but was designed so it can be tailored to the needs of individual institutions, writing committee member Connie N. Hess, MD, MHS, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, pointed out.

“At every level there is a lot of variance in institutional resources or even a patient’s resources,” she said. “So we didn’t want to seem too prescriptive.”

Some institutions, for example, may feel strongly that accessibility to a caregiver means someone staying in the house who can monitor the patient’s access site and call 911 if need be, whereas others may define it as having a neighbor who’s easy to reach by phone, Dr. Hess noted in an interview.

Exactly when the last patient can be eligible for same-day discharge may also vary between urban and rural settings where patients may drive hours for their care. The built-in flexibility also allows institutions to incorporate their own preexisting documents into the checklist.

“I don’t think the hospital buy-in is necessarily the hard part because there is a clear monetary benefit as long as you can show that it’s done safely and you’re not harming patients, which I think has been done,” Dr. Hess said. “I think then the next level down, you have the provider buy-in and that may be where there might be a little bit more work depending on the preexisting culture.”

Part of the hesitancy may reflect a generational gap, whereby younger interventionalists who trained in programs with same-day discharge may be more willing to support the checklist.

“This actually parallels radial artery access where data exists on its benefits but it’s not used,” Dr. Hess said. “And I think a lot of this has to do with provider comfort levels with sending patients home and just not necessarily knowing how to implement a program at their institution.”

Both Dr. Rao and Dr. Hess pointed out that uptake of same-day discharge PCI is low in the United States, compared with other part of the world, including the United Kingdom, with estimates at about 16%-20% of PCIs.

That said, the timing of the new expert consensus document is “fortuitous,” Dr. Rao noted. Since work on the document began 2 years ago, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ greenlit reimbursement for PCI performed in an ambulatory surgical center and the pandemic walloped U.S. hospitals. “I think those two things really do highlight the importance of a document like this.”

“A potential advantage of the same-day discharge program is that you won’t be exposing patients to the hospital setting where COVID is a problem, and you’ll keep your beds open for the COVID patients that really do need it,” he said.

The ability to go home without an overnight stay may also encourage some patients to seek care. “Patients with cardiovascular disease really need to understand that you may be stable at one point but then obviously can become unstable, and we don’t want people to stay away from the hospital because they are worried about being admitted,” Dr. Rao said.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hess report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.

Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.

The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.

If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).

The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”

The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.

University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.

Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.

“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”

For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.

Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.

Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).

Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.

Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.

“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”

In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.

“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”

Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.

Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.

The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.

If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).

The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”

The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.

University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.

Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.

“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”

For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.

Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.

Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).

Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.

Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.

“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”

In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.

“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”

Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.

Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.

The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.

If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).

The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”

The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.

University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.

Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.

“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”

For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.

Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.

Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).

Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.

Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.

“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”

In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.

“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”

Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Restricting percutaneous interventions (PCI) to only those stenotic lesions that are ischemic by fractional flow reserve (FFR) thresholds is associated with better 5-year outcomes whether or not PCI is deployed, according to a cohort study presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

For those that met the FFR threshold for ischemia, defined as up to 0.80, PCI reduced the risk of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 5 years by 23% (hazard ratio, 0.77) relative to no PCI. Conversely, those not indicated for PCI because of a higher FFR had a 37% higher risk of MACE (HR, 1.37) at 5 years if treated with PCI relative to those who were not.

“The story of overuse of PCI is important,” reported the senior author Dennis Ko, MD, a scientist affiliated with the Schulich Heart Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Canada. “We as interventionalists often think that putting in a stent is not harmful, and that turned out not to be the case.”

The FFR threshold for intervening with PCI is evidence based. Several trials, including one published in 2014, have associated PCI with better outcomes relative to medical therapy when FFR is 0.80 or lower. Other evidence suggests no advantage and possible harm for PCI performed if FFR is higher. Multiple guidelines, including those from the AHA, recommend against PCI if FFR is more than 0.80.

“As FRR is gaining in popularity, we were interested in whether physicians follow the thresholds in routine clinical practice and what happens to patient outcomes [if they are or are not followed],” Dr. Ko explained.

In this retrospective study by Dr. Ko’s trainee, Maneesh Sud, MD, and simultaneously published in JAMA, the answer was that there is deviation, and deviation leads to bad outcomes.

The 9,106 coronary artery disease patients included in the study underwent single-vessel FFR assessment within a 5-year period in Canada. The two cohorts evaluated were those with a lesional FFR of 0.80 or less, defined as ischemic, and those with a lesion with higher FFR, defined as nonischemic. The primary MACE outcome comprised death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or urgent coronary revascularization.

Of the 2,693 patients who met the FFR threshold of ischemia, 75.3% received PCI, and 24.7% were treated with medical therapy only. Of the 6,413 patients with nonischemic FFR, 87.4% were treated with medical therapy and 12.6% received PCI.

In those with ischemic FFR, event curves for MACE separated rapidly. At 30 days, the risk of MACE was 53% lower (HR, 0.47) in those receiving PCI. By 1 year, the advantage was less (HR, 0.76), but it was steady thereafter and remained about the same at 5 years (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.94). Relative advantages for each component of MACE went in the same direction. At 5 years, PCI exerted its greatest numerical advantage for the outcome or urgent coronary revascularization (HR, 0.71) and its least numerical advantage for MI (HR, 0.92), but none of these differences reached statistical significance.

In those with nonischemic coronary lesions on FFR, PCI was associated with more than twice the risk for MACE at 30 days (HR, 2.11), but the increase in risk relative to medical management fell at 1 year (HR 1.67) and 5 years (HR, 1.37). All of the individual components of MACE were numerically increased at all time points except for death, which was numerically lower at 30 days (HR, 0.41) and 5 years (HR, 0.94), even though these differences were not significant.

It could not be ascertained from these data why PCI was not performed when there was an indication or why it was performed when there was not. The investigators speculated that some clinicians may decide against PCI for ischemic lesions in the absence of symptoms or when concerned about comorbidities. They might offer PCI in nonischemic lesions because of symptoms, positive tests other than FFR, or FFR values near the threshold.

“I think the main message of our paper is that adherence of the FFR threshold as established by clinical trials is important,” Dr. Ko said in an interview. This not only means performing PCI when it is indicated, but refraining from PCI when it is not.

Basically, this study confirms that the guideline thresholds are valid, according to Jared M. O’Leary, MD, who is experienced with FFR and is Medical Director for Quality at the Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute, Nashville, Tenn.

“It confirms the utility of FFR in the real world,” he said, adding that the results are “totally consistent with our practice.” He called FFR “an important tool in the cardiac cath lab” not only for determining when revascularization will benefit the patient but the opposite.

“The flip side is also true: Stenting should be avoided if a negative FFR is obtained,” he said, calling this technique “particularly useful for lesions that appear borderline by visual estimation alone.”
 

SOURCE: Sud M et al. AHA 2020. JAMA. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22708.

Restricting percutaneous interventions (PCI) to only those stenotic lesions that are ischemic by fractional flow reserve (FFR) thresholds is associated with better 5-year outcomes whether or not PCI is deployed, according to a cohort study presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

For those that met the FFR threshold for ischemia, defined as up to 0.80, PCI reduced the risk of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 5 years by 23% (hazard ratio, 0.77) relative to no PCI. Conversely, those not indicated for PCI because of a higher FFR had a 37% higher risk of MACE (HR, 1.37) at 5 years if treated with PCI relative to those who were not.

“The story of overuse of PCI is important,” reported the senior author Dennis Ko, MD, a scientist affiliated with the Schulich Heart Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Canada. “We as interventionalists often think that putting in a stent is not harmful, and that turned out not to be the case.”

The FFR threshold for intervening with PCI is evidence based. Several trials, including one published in 2014, have associated PCI with better outcomes relative to medical therapy when FFR is 0.80 or lower. Other evidence suggests no advantage and possible harm for PCI performed if FFR is higher. Multiple guidelines, including those from the AHA, recommend against PCI if FFR is more than 0.80.

“As FRR is gaining in popularity, we were interested in whether physicians follow the thresholds in routine clinical practice and what happens to patient outcomes [if they are or are not followed],” Dr. Ko explained.

In this retrospective study by Dr. Ko’s trainee, Maneesh Sud, MD, and simultaneously published in JAMA, the answer was that there is deviation, and deviation leads to bad outcomes.

The 9,106 coronary artery disease patients included in the study underwent single-vessel FFR assessment within a 5-year period in Canada. The two cohorts evaluated were those with a lesional FFR of 0.80 or less, defined as ischemic, and those with a lesion with higher FFR, defined as nonischemic. The primary MACE outcome comprised death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or urgent coronary revascularization.

Of the 2,693 patients who met the FFR threshold of ischemia, 75.3% received PCI, and 24.7% were treated with medical therapy only. Of the 6,413 patients with nonischemic FFR, 87.4% were treated with medical therapy and 12.6% received PCI.

In those with ischemic FFR, event curves for MACE separated rapidly. At 30 days, the risk of MACE was 53% lower (HR, 0.47) in those receiving PCI. By 1 year, the advantage was less (HR, 0.76), but it was steady thereafter and remained about the same at 5 years (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.94). Relative advantages for each component of MACE went in the same direction. At 5 years, PCI exerted its greatest numerical advantage for the outcome or urgent coronary revascularization (HR, 0.71) and its least numerical advantage for MI (HR, 0.92), but none of these differences reached statistical significance.

In those with nonischemic coronary lesions on FFR, PCI was associated with more than twice the risk for MACE at 30 days (HR, 2.11), but the increase in risk relative to medical management fell at 1 year (HR 1.67) and 5 years (HR, 1.37). All of the individual components of MACE were numerically increased at all time points except for death, which was numerically lower at 30 days (HR, 0.41) and 5 years (HR, 0.94), even though these differences were not significant.

It could not be ascertained from these data why PCI was not performed when there was an indication or why it was performed when there was not. The investigators speculated that some clinicians may decide against PCI for ischemic lesions in the absence of symptoms or when concerned about comorbidities. They might offer PCI in nonischemic lesions because of symptoms, positive tests other than FFR, or FFR values near the threshold.

“I think the main message of our paper is that adherence of the FFR threshold as established by clinical trials is important,” Dr. Ko said in an interview. This not only means performing PCI when it is indicated, but refraining from PCI when it is not.

Basically, this study confirms that the guideline thresholds are valid, according to Jared M. O’Leary, MD, who is experienced with FFR and is Medical Director for Quality at the Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute, Nashville, Tenn.

“It confirms the utility of FFR in the real world,” he said, adding that the results are “totally consistent with our practice.” He called FFR “an important tool in the cardiac cath lab” not only for determining when revascularization will benefit the patient but the opposite.

“The flip side is also true: Stenting should be avoided if a negative FFR is obtained,” he said, calling this technique “particularly useful for lesions that appear borderline by visual estimation alone.”
 

SOURCE: Sud M et al. AHA 2020. JAMA. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22708.

Restricting percutaneous interventions (PCI) to only those stenotic lesions that are ischemic by fractional flow reserve (FFR) thresholds is associated with better 5-year outcomes whether or not PCI is deployed, according to a cohort study presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

For those that met the FFR threshold for ischemia, defined as up to 0.80, PCI reduced the risk of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 5 years by 23% (hazard ratio, 0.77) relative to no PCI. Conversely, those not indicated for PCI because of a higher FFR had a 37% higher risk of MACE (HR, 1.37) at 5 years if treated with PCI relative to those who were not.

“The story of overuse of PCI is important,” reported the senior author Dennis Ko, MD, a scientist affiliated with the Schulich Heart Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Canada. “We as interventionalists often think that putting in a stent is not harmful, and that turned out not to be the case.”

The FFR threshold for intervening with PCI is evidence based. Several trials, including one published in 2014, have associated PCI with better outcomes relative to medical therapy when FFR is 0.80 or lower. Other evidence suggests no advantage and possible harm for PCI performed if FFR is higher. Multiple guidelines, including those from the AHA, recommend against PCI if FFR is more than 0.80.

“As FRR is gaining in popularity, we were interested in whether physicians follow the thresholds in routine clinical practice and what happens to patient outcomes [if they are or are not followed],” Dr. Ko explained.

In this retrospective study by Dr. Ko’s trainee, Maneesh Sud, MD, and simultaneously published in JAMA, the answer was that there is deviation, and deviation leads to bad outcomes.

The 9,106 coronary artery disease patients included in the study underwent single-vessel FFR assessment within a 5-year period in Canada. The two cohorts evaluated were those with a lesional FFR of 0.80 or less, defined as ischemic, and those with a lesion with higher FFR, defined as nonischemic. The primary MACE outcome comprised death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or urgent coronary revascularization.

Of the 2,693 patients who met the FFR threshold of ischemia, 75.3% received PCI, and 24.7% were treated with medical therapy only. Of the 6,413 patients with nonischemic FFR, 87.4% were treated with medical therapy and 12.6% received PCI.

In those with ischemic FFR, event curves for MACE separated rapidly. At 30 days, the risk of MACE was 53% lower (HR, 0.47) in those receiving PCI. By 1 year, the advantage was less (HR, 0.76), but it was steady thereafter and remained about the same at 5 years (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.94). Relative advantages for each component of MACE went in the same direction. At 5 years, PCI exerted its greatest numerical advantage for the outcome or urgent coronary revascularization (HR, 0.71) and its least numerical advantage for MI (HR, 0.92), but none of these differences reached statistical significance.

In those with nonischemic coronary lesions on FFR, PCI was associated with more than twice the risk for MACE at 30 days (HR, 2.11), but the increase in risk relative to medical management fell at 1 year (HR 1.67) and 5 years (HR, 1.37). All of the individual components of MACE were numerically increased at all time points except for death, which was numerically lower at 30 days (HR, 0.41) and 5 years (HR, 0.94), even though these differences were not significant.

It could not be ascertained from these data why PCI was not performed when there was an indication or why it was performed when there was not. The investigators speculated that some clinicians may decide against PCI for ischemic lesions in the absence of symptoms or when concerned about comorbidities. They might offer PCI in nonischemic lesions because of symptoms, positive tests other than FFR, or FFR values near the threshold.

“I think the main message of our paper is that adherence of the FFR threshold as established by clinical trials is important,” Dr. Ko said in an interview. This not only means performing PCI when it is indicated, but refraining from PCI when it is not.

Basically, this study confirms that the guideline thresholds are valid, according to Jared M. O’Leary, MD, who is experienced with FFR and is Medical Director for Quality at the Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute, Nashville, Tenn.

“It confirms the utility of FFR in the real world,” he said, adding that the results are “totally consistent with our practice.” He called FFR “an important tool in the cardiac cath lab” not only for determining when revascularization will benefit the patient but the opposite.

“The flip side is also true: Stenting should be avoided if a negative FFR is obtained,” he said, calling this technique “particularly useful for lesions that appear borderline by visual estimation alone.”
 

SOURCE: Sud M et al. AHA 2020. JAMA. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22708.