Cardiology

Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus could benefit from a “plethora of newly available risk-reduction strategies,” but their “adoption into clinical practice has been slow” and inconsistent, prompting an expert panel organized by the American Heart Association to collate the range of treatment recommendations now applicable to this patient population in a scientific statement released on April 13.

“There are a number of things to consider when treating patients with stable coronary artery disease [CAD] and type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM], with new medications and trials and data emerging. It’s difficult to keep up with all of the complexities,” which was why the Association’s Councils on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health and on Clinical Cardiology put together a writing group to summarize and prioritize the range of lifestyle, medical, and interventional options that now require consideration and potential use on patients managed in routine practice, explained Suzanne V. Arnold, MD, chair of the writing group, in an interview.

The new scientific statement (Circulation. 2020 Apr 13; doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000766), aimed primarily at cardiologists but also intended to inform primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and all other clinicians who deal with these patients, pulls together “everything someone needs to think about if they care for patients with CAD and T2DM,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and vice chair of the statement-writing panel in an interview. “There is a lot to know,” he added.

The statement covers antithrombotic therapies; blood pressure control, with a discussion of both the appropriate pressure goal and the best drug types used to reach it; lipid management; glycemic control; lifestyle modification; weight management, including the role of bariatric surgery; and approaches to managing stable angina, both medically and with revascularization.

“The goal was to give clinicians a good sense of what new treatments they should consider” for these patients, said Dr. Bhatt, who is also director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, also in Boston. Because of the tight associations between T2DM and cardiovascular disease in general including CAD, “cardiologists are increasingly involved in managing patients with T2DM,” he noted. The statement gives a comprehensive overview and critical assessment of the management of these patients as of the end of 2019 as a consensus from a panel of 11 experts .

The statement also stressed that “substantial portions of patients with T2DM and CAD, including those after an acute coronary syndrome, do not receive therapies with proven cardiovascular benefit, such as high-intensity statins, dual-antiplatelet therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers, and glucose-lowering agents with proven cardiovascular benefits.

“These gaps in care highlight a critical opportunity for cardiovascular specialists to assume a more active role in the collaborative care of patients with T2DM and CAD,” the statement said. This includes “encouraging cardiologists to become more active in the selection of glucose-lowering medications” for these patients because it could “really move the needle,” said Dr. Arnold, a cardiologist with Saint Luke’s Health System in Kansas City, Mo. She was referring specifically to broader reliance on both the SGTL2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitors and the GLP-1 (glucagonlike peptide-1) receptor agonists as top choices for controlling hyperglycemia. Based on recent evidence drugs in these two classes “could be considered first line for patients with T2DM and CAD, and would likely be preferred over metformin,” Dr. Arnold said in an interview. Although the statement identified the SGLT2 inhibitors as “the first drug class [for glycemic control] to show clear benefits on cardiovascular outcomes,” it does not explicitly label the class first-line and it also skirts that designation for the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, while noting that metformin “remains the drug most frequently recommended as first-line therapy in treatment guidelines.”

“I wouldn’t disagree with someone who said that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are first line,” but prescribing patterns also depend on familiarity, cost, and access, noted Dr. Bhatt, which can all be issues with agents from these classes compared with metformin, a widely available generic with decades of use. “Metformin is safe and cheap, so we did not want to discount it,” said Dr. Arnold. Dr. Bhatt recently coauthored an editorial that gave an enthusiastic endorsement to using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes (Cell Metab. 2019 Nov 5;30[5]:47-9).

Another notable feature of the statement is the potential it assigns to bariatric surgery as a management tool with documented safety and efficacy for improving cardiovascular risk factors. However, the statement also notes that randomized trials “have thus far been inadequately powered to assess cardiovascular events and mortality, although observational studies have consistently shown cardiovascular risk reduction with such procedures.” The statement continues that despite potential cardiovascular benefits “bariatric surgery remains underused among eligible patients,” and said that surgery performed as Roux-en-Y bypass or sleeve gastrectomy “may be another effective tool for cardiovascular risk reduction in the subset of patients with obesity,” particularly patients with a body mass index of at least 35 kg/m².

“While the percentage of patients who are optimal for bariatric surgery is not known, the most recent NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Study] study showed that less than 0.5% of eligible patients underwent bariatric surgery,” Dr. Arnold noted. Bariatric surgery is “certainly not a recommendation for everyone, or even a majority of patients, but bariatric surgery should be on our radar,” for patients with CAD and T2DM, she said.

Right now, “few cardiologists think about bariatric surgery,” as a treatment option, but study results have shown that “in carefully selected patients treated by skilled surgeons at high-volume centers, patients will do better with bariatric surgery than with best medical therapy for improvements in multiple risk factors, including glycemic control,” Dr. Bhatt said in the interview. “It’s not first-line treatment, but it’s an option to consider,” he added, while also noting that bariatric surgery is most beneficial to patients relatively early in the course of T2DM, when its been in place for just a few years rather than a couple of decades.

The statement also notably included a “first-line” call out for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa), a novel agent approved in December 2019 for routine use in U.S. patients, including those with CAD and T2DM as long as their blood triglyceride level was at least 150 mg/dL. Dr. Bhatt, who led the REDUCE-IT study that was pivotal for proving the safety and efficacy of icosapent ethyl (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22), estimated that anywhere from 15% to as many as half the patients with CAD and T2DM might have a triglyceride level that would allow them to receive icosapent ethyl. One population-based study in Canada of nearly 200,000 people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease found a 25% prevalence of the triglyceride level needed to qualify to receive icosapent ethyl under current labeling, he noted (Eur Heart J. 2020 Jan 1;41[1]:86-94). However, the FDA label does not specify that triglycerides be measured when fasting, and a nonfasting level of about 150 mg/dL will likely appear for patients with fasting levels that fall as low as about 100 mg/dL, Dr. Bhatt said. He hoped that future studies will assess the efficacy of icosapent ethyl in patients with even lower triglyceride levels.

Other sections of the statement also recommend that clinicians: Target long-term dual-antiplatelet therapy to CAD and T2DM patients with additional high-risk markers such as prior MI, younger age, and tobacco use; prescribe a low-dose oral anticoagulant along with an antiplatelet drug such as aspirin for secondary-prevention patients; promote a blood pressure target of less than 140/90 mm Hg for all CAD and T2DM patients and apply a goal of less than 130/80 mm Hg in higher-risk patients such as blacks, Asians, and those with cerebrovascular disease; and reassure patients that “despite a modest increase in blood sugars, the risk-benefit ratio is clearly in favor of administering statins to people with T2DM and CAD.”

Dr. Arnold had no disclosures. Dr. Bhatt has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio; PLx Pharma, and Regado Biosciences, and he has received research funding from numerous companies including Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus could benefit from a “plethora of newly available risk-reduction strategies,” but their “adoption into clinical practice has been slow” and inconsistent, prompting an expert panel organized by the American Heart Association to collate the range of treatment recommendations now applicable to this patient population in a scientific statement released on April 13.

“There are a number of things to consider when treating patients with stable coronary artery disease [CAD] and type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM], with new medications and trials and data emerging. It’s difficult to keep up with all of the complexities,” which was why the Association’s Councils on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health and on Clinical Cardiology put together a writing group to summarize and prioritize the range of lifestyle, medical, and interventional options that now require consideration and potential use on patients managed in routine practice, explained Suzanne V. Arnold, MD, chair of the writing group, in an interview.

The new scientific statement (Circulation. 2020 Apr 13; doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000766), aimed primarily at cardiologists but also intended to inform primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and all other clinicians who deal with these patients, pulls together “everything someone needs to think about if they care for patients with CAD and T2DM,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and vice chair of the statement-writing panel in an interview. “There is a lot to know,” he added.

The statement covers antithrombotic therapies; blood pressure control, with a discussion of both the appropriate pressure goal and the best drug types used to reach it; lipid management; glycemic control; lifestyle modification; weight management, including the role of bariatric surgery; and approaches to managing stable angina, both medically and with revascularization.

“The goal was to give clinicians a good sense of what new treatments they should consider” for these patients, said Dr. Bhatt, who is also director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, also in Boston. Because of the tight associations between T2DM and cardiovascular disease in general including CAD, “cardiologists are increasingly involved in managing patients with T2DM,” he noted. The statement gives a comprehensive overview and critical assessment of the management of these patients as of the end of 2019 as a consensus from a panel of 11 experts .

The statement also stressed that “substantial portions of patients with T2DM and CAD, including those after an acute coronary syndrome, do not receive therapies with proven cardiovascular benefit, such as high-intensity statins, dual-antiplatelet therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers, and glucose-lowering agents with proven cardiovascular benefits.

“These gaps in care highlight a critical opportunity for cardiovascular specialists to assume a more active role in the collaborative care of patients with T2DM and CAD,” the statement said. This includes “encouraging cardiologists to become more active in the selection of glucose-lowering medications” for these patients because it could “really move the needle,” said Dr. Arnold, a cardiologist with Saint Luke’s Health System in Kansas City, Mo. She was referring specifically to broader reliance on both the SGTL2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitors and the GLP-1 (glucagonlike peptide-1) receptor agonists as top choices for controlling hyperglycemia. Based on recent evidence drugs in these two classes “could be considered first line for patients with T2DM and CAD, and would likely be preferred over metformin,” Dr. Arnold said in an interview. Although the statement identified the SGLT2 inhibitors as “the first drug class [for glycemic control] to show clear benefits on cardiovascular outcomes,” it does not explicitly label the class first-line and it also skirts that designation for the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, while noting that metformin “remains the drug most frequently recommended as first-line therapy in treatment guidelines.”

“I wouldn’t disagree with someone who said that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are first line,” but prescribing patterns also depend on familiarity, cost, and access, noted Dr. Bhatt, which can all be issues with agents from these classes compared with metformin, a widely available generic with decades of use. “Metformin is safe and cheap, so we did not want to discount it,” said Dr. Arnold. Dr. Bhatt recently coauthored an editorial that gave an enthusiastic endorsement to using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes (Cell Metab. 2019 Nov 5;30[5]:47-9).

Another notable feature of the statement is the potential it assigns to bariatric surgery as a management tool with documented safety and efficacy for improving cardiovascular risk factors. However, the statement also notes that randomized trials “have thus far been inadequately powered to assess cardiovascular events and mortality, although observational studies have consistently shown cardiovascular risk reduction with such procedures.” The statement continues that despite potential cardiovascular benefits “bariatric surgery remains underused among eligible patients,” and said that surgery performed as Roux-en-Y bypass or sleeve gastrectomy “may be another effective tool for cardiovascular risk reduction in the subset of patients with obesity,” particularly patients with a body mass index of at least 35 kg/m².

“While the percentage of patients who are optimal for bariatric surgery is not known, the most recent NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Study] study showed that less than 0.5% of eligible patients underwent bariatric surgery,” Dr. Arnold noted. Bariatric surgery is “certainly not a recommendation for everyone, or even a majority of patients, but bariatric surgery should be on our radar,” for patients with CAD and T2DM, she said.

Right now, “few cardiologists think about bariatric surgery,” as a treatment option, but study results have shown that “in carefully selected patients treated by skilled surgeons at high-volume centers, patients will do better with bariatric surgery than with best medical therapy for improvements in multiple risk factors, including glycemic control,” Dr. Bhatt said in the interview. “It’s not first-line treatment, but it’s an option to consider,” he added, while also noting that bariatric surgery is most beneficial to patients relatively early in the course of T2DM, when its been in place for just a few years rather than a couple of decades.

The statement also notably included a “first-line” call out for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa), a novel agent approved in December 2019 for routine use in U.S. patients, including those with CAD and T2DM as long as their blood triglyceride level was at least 150 mg/dL. Dr. Bhatt, who led the REDUCE-IT study that was pivotal for proving the safety and efficacy of icosapent ethyl (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22), estimated that anywhere from 15% to as many as half the patients with CAD and T2DM might have a triglyceride level that would allow them to receive icosapent ethyl. One population-based study in Canada of nearly 200,000 people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease found a 25% prevalence of the triglyceride level needed to qualify to receive icosapent ethyl under current labeling, he noted (Eur Heart J. 2020 Jan 1;41[1]:86-94). However, the FDA label does not specify that triglycerides be measured when fasting, and a nonfasting level of about 150 mg/dL will likely appear for patients with fasting levels that fall as low as about 100 mg/dL, Dr. Bhatt said. He hoped that future studies will assess the efficacy of icosapent ethyl in patients with even lower triglyceride levels.

Other sections of the statement also recommend that clinicians: Target long-term dual-antiplatelet therapy to CAD and T2DM patients with additional high-risk markers such as prior MI, younger age, and tobacco use; prescribe a low-dose oral anticoagulant along with an antiplatelet drug such as aspirin for secondary-prevention patients; promote a blood pressure target of less than 140/90 mm Hg for all CAD and T2DM patients and apply a goal of less than 130/80 mm Hg in higher-risk patients such as blacks, Asians, and those with cerebrovascular disease; and reassure patients that “despite a modest increase in blood sugars, the risk-benefit ratio is clearly in favor of administering statins to people with T2DM and CAD.”

Dr. Arnold had no disclosures. Dr. Bhatt has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio; PLx Pharma, and Regado Biosciences, and he has received research funding from numerous companies including Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus could benefit from a “plethora of newly available risk-reduction strategies,” but their “adoption into clinical practice has been slow” and inconsistent, prompting an expert panel organized by the American Heart Association to collate the range of treatment recommendations now applicable to this patient population in a scientific statement released on April 13.

“There are a number of things to consider when treating patients with stable coronary artery disease [CAD] and type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM], with new medications and trials and data emerging. It’s difficult to keep up with all of the complexities,” which was why the Association’s Councils on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health and on Clinical Cardiology put together a writing group to summarize and prioritize the range of lifestyle, medical, and interventional options that now require consideration and potential use on patients managed in routine practice, explained Suzanne V. Arnold, MD, chair of the writing group, in an interview.

The new scientific statement (Circulation. 2020 Apr 13; doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000766), aimed primarily at cardiologists but also intended to inform primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and all other clinicians who deal with these patients, pulls together “everything someone needs to think about if they care for patients with CAD and T2DM,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and vice chair of the statement-writing panel in an interview. “There is a lot to know,” he added.

The statement covers antithrombotic therapies; blood pressure control, with a discussion of both the appropriate pressure goal and the best drug types used to reach it; lipid management; glycemic control; lifestyle modification; weight management, including the role of bariatric surgery; and approaches to managing stable angina, both medically and with revascularization.

“The goal was to give clinicians a good sense of what new treatments they should consider” for these patients, said Dr. Bhatt, who is also director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, also in Boston. Because of the tight associations between T2DM and cardiovascular disease in general including CAD, “cardiologists are increasingly involved in managing patients with T2DM,” he noted. The statement gives a comprehensive overview and critical assessment of the management of these patients as of the end of 2019 as a consensus from a panel of 11 experts .

The statement also stressed that “substantial portions of patients with T2DM and CAD, including those after an acute coronary syndrome, do not receive therapies with proven cardiovascular benefit, such as high-intensity statins, dual-antiplatelet therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers, and glucose-lowering agents with proven cardiovascular benefits.

“These gaps in care highlight a critical opportunity for cardiovascular specialists to assume a more active role in the collaborative care of patients with T2DM and CAD,” the statement said. This includes “encouraging cardiologists to become more active in the selection of glucose-lowering medications” for these patients because it could “really move the needle,” said Dr. Arnold, a cardiologist with Saint Luke’s Health System in Kansas City, Mo. She was referring specifically to broader reliance on both the SGTL2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitors and the GLP-1 (glucagonlike peptide-1) receptor agonists as top choices for controlling hyperglycemia. Based on recent evidence drugs in these two classes “could be considered first line for patients with T2DM and CAD, and would likely be preferred over metformin,” Dr. Arnold said in an interview. Although the statement identified the SGLT2 inhibitors as “the first drug class [for glycemic control] to show clear benefits on cardiovascular outcomes,” it does not explicitly label the class first-line and it also skirts that designation for the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, while noting that metformin “remains the drug most frequently recommended as first-line therapy in treatment guidelines.”

“I wouldn’t disagree with someone who said that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are first line,” but prescribing patterns also depend on familiarity, cost, and access, noted Dr. Bhatt, which can all be issues with agents from these classes compared with metformin, a widely available generic with decades of use. “Metformin is safe and cheap, so we did not want to discount it,” said Dr. Arnold. Dr. Bhatt recently coauthored an editorial that gave an enthusiastic endorsement to using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes (Cell Metab. 2019 Nov 5;30[5]:47-9).

Another notable feature of the statement is the potential it assigns to bariatric surgery as a management tool with documented safety and efficacy for improving cardiovascular risk factors. However, the statement also notes that randomized trials “have thus far been inadequately powered to assess cardiovascular events and mortality, although observational studies have consistently shown cardiovascular risk reduction with such procedures.” The statement continues that despite potential cardiovascular benefits “bariatric surgery remains underused among eligible patients,” and said that surgery performed as Roux-en-Y bypass or sleeve gastrectomy “may be another effective tool for cardiovascular risk reduction in the subset of patients with obesity,” particularly patients with a body mass index of at least 35 kg/m².

“While the percentage of patients who are optimal for bariatric surgery is not known, the most recent NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Study] study showed that less than 0.5% of eligible patients underwent bariatric surgery,” Dr. Arnold noted. Bariatric surgery is “certainly not a recommendation for everyone, or even a majority of patients, but bariatric surgery should be on our radar,” for patients with CAD and T2DM, she said.

Right now, “few cardiologists think about bariatric surgery,” as a treatment option, but study results have shown that “in carefully selected patients treated by skilled surgeons at high-volume centers, patients will do better with bariatric surgery than with best medical therapy for improvements in multiple risk factors, including glycemic control,” Dr. Bhatt said in the interview. “It’s not first-line treatment, but it’s an option to consider,” he added, while also noting that bariatric surgery is most beneficial to patients relatively early in the course of T2DM, when its been in place for just a few years rather than a couple of decades.

The statement also notably included a “first-line” call out for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa), a novel agent approved in December 2019 for routine use in U.S. patients, including those with CAD and T2DM as long as their blood triglyceride level was at least 150 mg/dL. Dr. Bhatt, who led the REDUCE-IT study that was pivotal for proving the safety and efficacy of icosapent ethyl (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22), estimated that anywhere from 15% to as many as half the patients with CAD and T2DM might have a triglyceride level that would allow them to receive icosapent ethyl. One population-based study in Canada of nearly 200,000 people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease found a 25% prevalence of the triglyceride level needed to qualify to receive icosapent ethyl under current labeling, he noted (Eur Heart J. 2020 Jan 1;41[1]:86-94). However, the FDA label does not specify that triglycerides be measured when fasting, and a nonfasting level of about 150 mg/dL will likely appear for patients with fasting levels that fall as low as about 100 mg/dL, Dr. Bhatt said. He hoped that future studies will assess the efficacy of icosapent ethyl in patients with even lower triglyceride levels.

Other sections of the statement also recommend that clinicians: Target long-term dual-antiplatelet therapy to CAD and T2DM patients with additional high-risk markers such as prior MI, younger age, and tobacco use; prescribe a low-dose oral anticoagulant along with an antiplatelet drug such as aspirin for secondary-prevention patients; promote a blood pressure target of less than 140/90 mm Hg for all CAD and T2DM patients and apply a goal of less than 130/80 mm Hg in higher-risk patients such as blacks, Asians, and those with cerebrovascular disease; and reassure patients that “despite a modest increase in blood sugars, the risk-benefit ratio is clearly in favor of administering statins to people with T2DM and CAD.”

Dr. Arnold had no disclosures. Dr. Bhatt has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio; PLx Pharma, and Regado Biosciences, and he has received research funding from numerous companies including Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The nation’s leading cardiology associations urged caution with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for COVID-19 in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Thinkstock

“Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been touted for potential prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19; both drugs are listed as definite causes of torsade de pointes” and increase in the risk of other arrhythmias and sudden death, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society said in a joint statement April 8 in Circulation.

The statement came amid ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite lack of strong data.

In addition to underlying cardiovascular disease, “seriously ill patients often have comorbidities that can increase risk of serious arrhythmias,” including hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, fever, and systemic inflammation, the groups said.

They recommended withholding the drugs in patients with baseline QT prolongation (e.g., QTc of at least 500 msec) or with known congenital long QT syndrome; monitoring cardiac rhythm and QT interval and withdrawing hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin if QTc exceeds 500 msec; correcting hypokalemia to levels greater than 4 mEq/L and hypomagnesemia to more than 2 mg/dL; and avoiding other QTc-prolonging agents when possible.

The groups noted that, “in patients critically ill with COVID-19 infection, frequent caregiver contact may need to be minimized, so optimal electrocardiographic interval and rhythm monitoring may not be possible.” There is also a possible compounding arrhythmic effect when hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are used together, but that has not been studied.

There’s a known risk of torsade de pointes with chloroquine and a possible risk with the antiviral HIV combination drug lopinavir-ritonavir, two other candidates for COVID-19 treatment. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, both antimalarials, might help prevent or treat infection by interfering with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, which the COVID-19 virus uses for cell entry, the groups said.

“The urgency of COVID-19 must not diminish the scientific rigor with which we approach COVID-19 treatment. While these medications may work against COVID-19 individually or in combination, we recommend caution with these medications for patients with existing cardiovascular disease,” Robert A. Harrington, MD, AHA president and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, emphasized in a press release.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Roden DM et al. Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521.

The nation’s leading cardiology associations urged caution with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for COVID-19 in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Thinkstock

“Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been touted for potential prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19; both drugs are listed as definite causes of torsade de pointes” and increase in the risk of other arrhythmias and sudden death, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society said in a joint statement April 8 in Circulation.

The statement came amid ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite lack of strong data.

In addition to underlying cardiovascular disease, “seriously ill patients often have comorbidities that can increase risk of serious arrhythmias,” including hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, fever, and systemic inflammation, the groups said.

They recommended withholding the drugs in patients with baseline QT prolongation (e.g., QTc of at least 500 msec) or with known congenital long QT syndrome; monitoring cardiac rhythm and QT interval and withdrawing hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin if QTc exceeds 500 msec; correcting hypokalemia to levels greater than 4 mEq/L and hypomagnesemia to more than 2 mg/dL; and avoiding other QTc-prolonging agents when possible.

The groups noted that, “in patients critically ill with COVID-19 infection, frequent caregiver contact may need to be minimized, so optimal electrocardiographic interval and rhythm monitoring may not be possible.” There is also a possible compounding arrhythmic effect when hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are used together, but that has not been studied.

There’s a known risk of torsade de pointes with chloroquine and a possible risk with the antiviral HIV combination drug lopinavir-ritonavir, two other candidates for COVID-19 treatment. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, both antimalarials, might help prevent or treat infection by interfering with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, which the COVID-19 virus uses for cell entry, the groups said.

“The urgency of COVID-19 must not diminish the scientific rigor with which we approach COVID-19 treatment. While these medications may work against COVID-19 individually or in combination, we recommend caution with these medications for patients with existing cardiovascular disease,” Robert A. Harrington, MD, AHA president and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, emphasized in a press release.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Roden DM et al. Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521.

The nation’s leading cardiology associations urged caution with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for COVID-19 in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Thinkstock

“Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been touted for potential prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19; both drugs are listed as definite causes of torsade de pointes” and increase in the risk of other arrhythmias and sudden death, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society said in a joint statement April 8 in Circulation.

The statement came amid ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite lack of strong data.

In addition to underlying cardiovascular disease, “seriously ill patients often have comorbidities that can increase risk of serious arrhythmias,” including hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, fever, and systemic inflammation, the groups said.

They recommended withholding the drugs in patients with baseline QT prolongation (e.g., QTc of at least 500 msec) or with known congenital long QT syndrome; monitoring cardiac rhythm and QT interval and withdrawing hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin if QTc exceeds 500 msec; correcting hypokalemia to levels greater than 4 mEq/L and hypomagnesemia to more than 2 mg/dL; and avoiding other QTc-prolonging agents when possible.

The groups noted that, “in patients critically ill with COVID-19 infection, frequent caregiver contact may need to be minimized, so optimal electrocardiographic interval and rhythm monitoring may not be possible.” There is also a possible compounding arrhythmic effect when hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are used together, but that has not been studied.

There’s a known risk of torsade de pointes with chloroquine and a possible risk with the antiviral HIV combination drug lopinavir-ritonavir, two other candidates for COVID-19 treatment. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, both antimalarials, might help prevent or treat infection by interfering with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, which the COVID-19 virus uses for cell entry, the groups said.

“The urgency of COVID-19 must not diminish the scientific rigor with which we approach COVID-19 treatment. While these medications may work against COVID-19 individually or in combination, we recommend caution with these medications for patients with existing cardiovascular disease,” Robert A. Harrington, MD, AHA president and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, emphasized in a press release.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Roden DM et al. Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521.

It’s becoming clear that COVID-19 infection can involve the cardiovascular system in many different ways, and this has “evolving” potential implications for treatment, say a team of cardiologists on the frontlines of the COVID-19 battle in New York City.

In an article published online April 3 in Circulation, Justin Fried, MD, Division of Cardiology, Columbia University, New York City, and colleagues present four case studies of COVID-19 patients with various cardiovascular presentations.

Case 1 is a 64-year-old woman whose predominant symptoms on admission were cardiac in nature, including chest pain and ST elevation, but without fever, cough, or other symptoms suggestive of COVID-19.

“In patients presenting with what appears to be a typical cardiac syndrome, COVID-19 infection should be in the differential during the current pandemic, even in the absence of fever or cough,” the clinicians advise.

Case 2 is a 38-year-old man with cardiogenic shock and acute respiratory distress with profound hypoxia who was rescued with veno-arterial-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO).

The initial presentation of this patient was more characteristic of severe COVID-19 disease, and cardiac involvement only became apparent after the initiation of ECMO, Fried and colleagues report.

Based on this case, they advise a “low threshold” to assess for cardiogenic shock in patients with acute systolic heart failure related to COVID-19. If inotropic support fails in these patients, intra-aortic balloon pump should be considered first for mechanical circulatory support because it requires the least maintenance from medical support staff.

In addition, in their experience, when a patient on VV ECMO develops superimposed cardiogenic shock, adding an arterial conduit at a relatively low blood flow rate may provide the necessary circulatory support without inducing left ventricular distension, they note.

“Our experience confirms that rescue of patients even with profound cardiogenic or mixed shock may be possible with temporary hemodynamic support at centers with availability of such devices,” Fried and colleagues report.

Case 3 is a 64-year-old woman with underlying cardiac disease who developed profound decompensation with COVID-19 infection.

This case demonstrates that the infection can cause decompensation of underlying heart failure and may lead to mixed shock, the clinicians say.

“Invasive hemodynamic monitoring, if feasible, may be helpful to manage the cardiac component of shock in such cases. Medications that prolong the QT interval are being considered for COVID-19 patients and may require closer monitoring in patients with underlying structural heart disease,” they note.

Case 4 is a 51-year-old man who underwent a heart transplant in 2007 and a kidney transplant in 2010. He had COVID-19 symptoms akin to those seen in nonimmunosuppressed patients with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents a “unique challenge” for solid organ transplant recipients, with only “limited” data on how to adjust immunosuppression during COVID-19 infection, Fried and colleagues say.

The pandemic also creates a challenge for the management of heart failure patients on the heart transplant wait list; the risks of delaying a transplant need to be balanced against the risks of donor infection and uncertainty regarding the impact of post-transplant immunosuppression protocols, they note.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the American Heart Association has developed a COVID-19 patient registry to collect data on cardiovascular conditions and outcomes related to COVID-19 infection.

To participate in the registry, contact qualityresearch@heart.org.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s becoming clear that COVID-19 infection can involve the cardiovascular system in many different ways, and this has “evolving” potential implications for treatment, say a team of cardiologists on the frontlines of the COVID-19 battle in New York City.

In an article published online April 3 in Circulation, Justin Fried, MD, Division of Cardiology, Columbia University, New York City, and colleagues present four case studies of COVID-19 patients with various cardiovascular presentations.

Case 1 is a 64-year-old woman whose predominant symptoms on admission were cardiac in nature, including chest pain and ST elevation, but without fever, cough, or other symptoms suggestive of COVID-19.

“In patients presenting with what appears to be a typical cardiac syndrome, COVID-19 infection should be in the differential during the current pandemic, even in the absence of fever or cough,” the clinicians advise.

Case 2 is a 38-year-old man with cardiogenic shock and acute respiratory distress with profound hypoxia who was rescued with veno-arterial-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO).

The initial presentation of this patient was more characteristic of severe COVID-19 disease, and cardiac involvement only became apparent after the initiation of ECMO, Fried and colleagues report.

Based on this case, they advise a “low threshold” to assess for cardiogenic shock in patients with acute systolic heart failure related to COVID-19. If inotropic support fails in these patients, intra-aortic balloon pump should be considered first for mechanical circulatory support because it requires the least maintenance from medical support staff.

In addition, in their experience, when a patient on VV ECMO develops superimposed cardiogenic shock, adding an arterial conduit at a relatively low blood flow rate may provide the necessary circulatory support without inducing left ventricular distension, they note.

“Our experience confirms that rescue of patients even with profound cardiogenic or mixed shock may be possible with temporary hemodynamic support at centers with availability of such devices,” Fried and colleagues report.

Case 3 is a 64-year-old woman with underlying cardiac disease who developed profound decompensation with COVID-19 infection.

This case demonstrates that the infection can cause decompensation of underlying heart failure and may lead to mixed shock, the clinicians say.

“Invasive hemodynamic monitoring, if feasible, may be helpful to manage the cardiac component of shock in such cases. Medications that prolong the QT interval are being considered for COVID-19 patients and may require closer monitoring in patients with underlying structural heart disease,” they note.

Case 4 is a 51-year-old man who underwent a heart transplant in 2007 and a kidney transplant in 2010. He had COVID-19 symptoms akin to those seen in nonimmunosuppressed patients with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents a “unique challenge” for solid organ transplant recipients, with only “limited” data on how to adjust immunosuppression during COVID-19 infection, Fried and colleagues say.

The pandemic also creates a challenge for the management of heart failure patients on the heart transplant wait list; the risks of delaying a transplant need to be balanced against the risks of donor infection and uncertainty regarding the impact of post-transplant immunosuppression protocols, they note.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the American Heart Association has developed a COVID-19 patient registry to collect data on cardiovascular conditions and outcomes related to COVID-19 infection.

To participate in the registry, contact qualityresearch@heart.org.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s becoming clear that COVID-19 infection can involve the cardiovascular system in many different ways, and this has “evolving” potential implications for treatment, say a team of cardiologists on the frontlines of the COVID-19 battle in New York City.

In an article published online April 3 in Circulation, Justin Fried, MD, Division of Cardiology, Columbia University, New York City, and colleagues present four case studies of COVID-19 patients with various cardiovascular presentations.

Case 1 is a 64-year-old woman whose predominant symptoms on admission were cardiac in nature, including chest pain and ST elevation, but without fever, cough, or other symptoms suggestive of COVID-19.

“In patients presenting with what appears to be a typical cardiac syndrome, COVID-19 infection should be in the differential during the current pandemic, even in the absence of fever or cough,” the clinicians advise.

Case 2 is a 38-year-old man with cardiogenic shock and acute respiratory distress with profound hypoxia who was rescued with veno-arterial-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO).

The initial presentation of this patient was more characteristic of severe COVID-19 disease, and cardiac involvement only became apparent after the initiation of ECMO, Fried and colleagues report.

Based on this case, they advise a “low threshold” to assess for cardiogenic shock in patients with acute systolic heart failure related to COVID-19. If inotropic support fails in these patients, intra-aortic balloon pump should be considered first for mechanical circulatory support because it requires the least maintenance from medical support staff.

In addition, in their experience, when a patient on VV ECMO develops superimposed cardiogenic shock, adding an arterial conduit at a relatively low blood flow rate may provide the necessary circulatory support without inducing left ventricular distension, they note.

“Our experience confirms that rescue of patients even with profound cardiogenic or mixed shock may be possible with temporary hemodynamic support at centers with availability of such devices,” Fried and colleagues report.

Case 3 is a 64-year-old woman with underlying cardiac disease who developed profound decompensation with COVID-19 infection.

This case demonstrates that the infection can cause decompensation of underlying heart failure and may lead to mixed shock, the clinicians say.

“Invasive hemodynamic monitoring, if feasible, may be helpful to manage the cardiac component of shock in such cases. Medications that prolong the QT interval are being considered for COVID-19 patients and may require closer monitoring in patients with underlying structural heart disease,” they note.

Case 4 is a 51-year-old man who underwent a heart transplant in 2007 and a kidney transplant in 2010. He had COVID-19 symptoms akin to those seen in nonimmunosuppressed patients with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents a “unique challenge” for solid organ transplant recipients, with only “limited” data on how to adjust immunosuppression during COVID-19 infection, Fried and colleagues say.

The pandemic also creates a challenge for the management of heart failure patients on the heart transplant wait list; the risks of delaying a transplant need to be balanced against the risks of donor infection and uncertainty regarding the impact of post-transplant immunosuppression protocols, they note.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, the American Heart Association has developed a COVID-19 patient registry to collect data on cardiovascular conditions and outcomes related to COVID-19 infection.

To participate in the registry, contact qualityresearch@heart.org.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A healthy 72-year-old man with well-controlled hypertension on amlodipine 10 mg/d presents to you for an annual exam. He has no history of coronary artery disease or stroke. Should you recommend that he start aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death in the United States.² Aspirin therapy remains the standard of care for secondary prevention of CVD in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD).³ Aspirin reduces the risk of atherothrombosis by irreversibly inhibiting platelet function. At the same time, it increases the risk of major bleeding, including gastrointestinal bleeds and hemorrhagic strokes. Even though the benefit of aspirin in patients with known CAD is well established, the benefit of aspirin as primary prevention is less certain.

Two recent large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examined the benefits and risks of aspirin in a variety of patient populations. The ARRIVE trial looked at more than 12,000 patients with a mean age of 63 years with moderate risk of CVD (approximately 15% risk of a cardiovascular event in 10 years) and randomly assigned them to receive aspirin or placebo.⁴ After an average follow-up period of 5 years, researchers observed that actual cardiovascular event risk was < 10% in both groups, and there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of first cardiovascular event or all-cause mortality. There was, however, a significant increase in bleeding events in the group receiving aspirin.⁴

The ASCEND trial evaluated aspirin vs placebo in more than 15,000 adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a low risk of CVD (< 10% risk of cardiovascular event in 5 years). ⁵ The primary endpoint of the study was first cardiovascular event. The authors found a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular events in the aspirin group, as well as more major bleeding events. Additionally, there was no difference between the aspirin and placebo groups in all-cause ­mortality after 7 years. The authors concluded that the benefits of aspirin in this group were ­counterbalanced by the harms.⁵

Currently, several organizations offer recommendations on aspirin use in people 40 to 70 years of age based on a patient’s risk of bleeding and risk of CVD.^6-8 Recommendations regarding aspirin use as primary prevention have been less clear for patients < 40 and > 70 years of age.⁶

Elderly patients are at higher risk of CVD and bleeding, but until recently, few studies had evaluated elderly populations to assess the benefits vs the risks of aspirin for primary CVD prevention. As of 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) stated the evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of the benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD in patients older than 70 years of age.⁶ This trial focuses on aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD in healthy elderly adults.

STUDY SUMMARY

Don’t use aspirin as primary prevention of CVD in the elderly

This secondary analysis of a prior double-blind RCT, which found low-dose aspirin did not prolong survival in elderly patients, examined the effect of aspirin on CVD and hemorrhage in 19,114 elderly patients without known CVD.¹ The patients were ≥ 70 years of age (≥ 65 years for blacks and Hispanics) with a mean age of 74 years and were from Australia (87%) and the United States (13%). Approximately one-third of the patients were taking a statin, and 14% were taking a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) regularly. Patients were randomized to either aspirin 100 mg/d or matching placebo and were followed for an average of 4.7 years.

Continue to: Outcomes

Outcomes. The outcome of CVD was a composite of fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or nonfatal ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure, and the outcome of major adverse cardiovascular event was a composite of fatal cardiovascular disease (excluding death from heart failure), nonfatal MI, or fatal and nonfatal ischemic stroke.

Results. No difference was seen between the aspirin and placebo groups in CVD outcomes (10.7 events per 1000 person-years vs 11.3 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.08) or major cardiovascular events (7.8 events per 1000 person-years vs 8.8 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.03). The composite and individual endpoints of fatal cardiovascular disease, heart failure hospitalizations, fatal and nonfatal MI, and ischemic stroke also did not differ significantly between the groups.

Because of this trial, the ACC and AHA have updated their guidelines on primary prevention of CVD to recommend against the routine use of aspirin in patients > 70 years of age.

The rate of major hemorrhagic events (composite of hemorrhagic stroke, intracranial bleed, or extracranial bleed), however, was higher in the aspirin vs the placebo group (8.6 events per 1000 person-years vs 6.2 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; HR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6; number needed to harm = 98).

WHAT’S NEW

Finding of more harm than good leads to change in ACC/AHA guidelines

Although the most recent USPSTF guidelines state the evidence is insufficient to assess the risks and benefits of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in this age group, this trial reveals there is a greater risk of hemorrhagic events than there is prevention of cardiovascular outcomes with aspirin use in healthy elderly patients > 70 years of age.⁶ Because of this trial, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have updated their guidelines on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease to recommend that aspirin not be used routinely in patients > 70 years of age.⁷

CAVEATS

Potential benefit to people at higher risk?

The rate of cardiovascular disease was lower than expected in this overall healthy population, so it is not known if cardiovascular benefits may outweigh the risk of bleeding in a higher-risk population. The trial also didn’t address the potential harms of deprescribing aspirin. Additionally, although aspirin may not be protective for cardiovascular events and may lead to more bleeding, there may be other benefits to aspirin in this patient population that were not addressed by this study.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Popular beliefs and wide availability may make tide difficult to change

Patients have been told for years to take a daily aspirin to “protect their heart”; this behavior may be difficult to change. And because aspirin is widely available over the counter, patients may take it without their physician’s knowledge.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A healthy 72-year-old man with well-controlled hypertension on amlodipine 10 mg/d presents to you for an annual exam. He has no history of coronary artery disease or stroke. Should you recommend that he start aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death in the United States.² Aspirin therapy remains the standard of care for secondary prevention of CVD in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD).³ Aspirin reduces the risk of atherothrombosis by irreversibly inhibiting platelet function. At the same time, it increases the risk of major bleeding, including gastrointestinal bleeds and hemorrhagic strokes. Even though the benefit of aspirin in patients with known CAD is well established, the benefit of aspirin as primary prevention is less certain.

Two recent large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examined the benefits and risks of aspirin in a variety of patient populations. The ARRIVE trial looked at more than 12,000 patients with a mean age of 63 years with moderate risk of CVD (approximately 15% risk of a cardiovascular event in 10 years) and randomly assigned them to receive aspirin or placebo.⁴ After an average follow-up period of 5 years, researchers observed that actual cardiovascular event risk was < 10% in both groups, and there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of first cardiovascular event or all-cause mortality. There was, however, a significant increase in bleeding events in the group receiving aspirin.⁴

The ASCEND trial evaluated aspirin vs placebo in more than 15,000 adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a low risk of CVD (< 10% risk of cardiovascular event in 5 years). ⁵ The primary endpoint of the study was first cardiovascular event. The authors found a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular events in the aspirin group, as well as more major bleeding events. Additionally, there was no difference between the aspirin and placebo groups in all-cause ­mortality after 7 years. The authors concluded that the benefits of aspirin in this group were ­counterbalanced by the harms.⁵

Currently, several organizations offer recommendations on aspirin use in people 40 to 70 years of age based on a patient’s risk of bleeding and risk of CVD.^6-8 Recommendations regarding aspirin use as primary prevention have been less clear for patients < 40 and > 70 years of age.⁶

Elderly patients are at higher risk of CVD and bleeding, but until recently, few studies had evaluated elderly populations to assess the benefits vs the risks of aspirin for primary CVD prevention. As of 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) stated the evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of the benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD in patients older than 70 years of age.⁶ This trial focuses on aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD in healthy elderly adults.

STUDY SUMMARY

Don’t use aspirin as primary prevention of CVD in the elderly

This secondary analysis of a prior double-blind RCT, which found low-dose aspirin did not prolong survival in elderly patients, examined the effect of aspirin on CVD and hemorrhage in 19,114 elderly patients without known CVD.¹ The patients were ≥ 70 years of age (≥ 65 years for blacks and Hispanics) with a mean age of 74 years and were from Australia (87%) and the United States (13%). Approximately one-third of the patients were taking a statin, and 14% were taking a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) regularly. Patients were randomized to either aspirin 100 mg/d or matching placebo and were followed for an average of 4.7 years.

Continue to: Outcomes

Outcomes. The outcome of CVD was a composite of fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or nonfatal ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure, and the outcome of major adverse cardiovascular event was a composite of fatal cardiovascular disease (excluding death from heart failure), nonfatal MI, or fatal and nonfatal ischemic stroke.

Results. No difference was seen between the aspirin and placebo groups in CVD outcomes (10.7 events per 1000 person-years vs 11.3 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.08) or major cardiovascular events (7.8 events per 1000 person-years vs 8.8 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.03). The composite and individual endpoints of fatal cardiovascular disease, heart failure hospitalizations, fatal and nonfatal MI, and ischemic stroke also did not differ significantly between the groups.

Because of this trial, the ACC and AHA have updated their guidelines on primary prevention of CVD to recommend against the routine use of aspirin in patients > 70 years of age.

The rate of major hemorrhagic events (composite of hemorrhagic stroke, intracranial bleed, or extracranial bleed), however, was higher in the aspirin vs the placebo group (8.6 events per 1000 person-years vs 6.2 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; HR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6; number needed to harm = 98).

WHAT’S NEW

Finding of more harm than good leads to change in ACC/AHA guidelines

Although the most recent USPSTF guidelines state the evidence is insufficient to assess the risks and benefits of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in this age group, this trial reveals there is a greater risk of hemorrhagic events than there is prevention of cardiovascular outcomes with aspirin use in healthy elderly patients > 70 years of age.⁶ Because of this trial, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have updated their guidelines on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease to recommend that aspirin not be used routinely in patients > 70 years of age.⁷

CAVEATS

Potential benefit to people at higher risk?

The rate of cardiovascular disease was lower than expected in this overall healthy population, so it is not known if cardiovascular benefits may outweigh the risk of bleeding in a higher-risk population. The trial also didn’t address the potential harms of deprescribing aspirin. Additionally, although aspirin may not be protective for cardiovascular events and may lead to more bleeding, there may be other benefits to aspirin in this patient population that were not addressed by this study.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Popular beliefs and wide availability may make tide difficult to change

Patients have been told for years to take a daily aspirin to “protect their heart”; this behavior may be difficult to change. And because aspirin is widely available over the counter, patients may take it without their physician’s knowledge.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A healthy 72-year-old man with well-controlled hypertension on amlodipine 10 mg/d presents to you for an annual exam. He has no history of coronary artery disease or stroke. Should you recommend that he start aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death in the United States.² Aspirin therapy remains the standard of care for secondary prevention of CVD in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD).³ Aspirin reduces the risk of atherothrombosis by irreversibly inhibiting platelet function. At the same time, it increases the risk of major bleeding, including gastrointestinal bleeds and hemorrhagic strokes. Even though the benefit of aspirin in patients with known CAD is well established, the benefit of aspirin as primary prevention is less certain.

Two recent large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examined the benefits and risks of aspirin in a variety of patient populations. The ARRIVE trial looked at more than 12,000 patients with a mean age of 63 years with moderate risk of CVD (approximately 15% risk of a cardiovascular event in 10 years) and randomly assigned them to receive aspirin or placebo.⁴ After an average follow-up period of 5 years, researchers observed that actual cardiovascular event risk was < 10% in both groups, and there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of first cardiovascular event or all-cause mortality. There was, however, a significant increase in bleeding events in the group receiving aspirin.⁴

The ASCEND trial evaluated aspirin vs placebo in more than 15,000 adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a low risk of CVD (< 10% risk of cardiovascular event in 5 years). ⁵ The primary endpoint of the study was first cardiovascular event. The authors found a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular events in the aspirin group, as well as more major bleeding events. Additionally, there was no difference between the aspirin and placebo groups in all-cause ­mortality after 7 years. The authors concluded that the benefits of aspirin in this group were ­counterbalanced by the harms.⁵

Currently, several organizations offer recommendations on aspirin use in people 40 to 70 years of age based on a patient’s risk of bleeding and risk of CVD.^6-8 Recommendations regarding aspirin use as primary prevention have been less clear for patients < 40 and > 70 years of age.⁶

Elderly patients are at higher risk of CVD and bleeding, but until recently, few studies had evaluated elderly populations to assess the benefits vs the risks of aspirin for primary CVD prevention. As of 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) stated the evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of the benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD in patients older than 70 years of age.⁶ This trial focuses on aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD in healthy elderly adults.

STUDY SUMMARY

Don’t use aspirin as primary prevention of CVD in the elderly

This secondary analysis of a prior double-blind RCT, which found low-dose aspirin did not prolong survival in elderly patients, examined the effect of aspirin on CVD and hemorrhage in 19,114 elderly patients without known CVD.¹ The patients were ≥ 70 years of age (≥ 65 years for blacks and Hispanics) with a mean age of 74 years and were from Australia (87%) and the United States (13%). Approximately one-third of the patients were taking a statin, and 14% were taking a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) regularly. Patients were randomized to either aspirin 100 mg/d or matching placebo and were followed for an average of 4.7 years.

Continue to: Outcomes

Outcomes. The outcome of CVD was a composite of fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or nonfatal ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure, and the outcome of major adverse cardiovascular event was a composite of fatal cardiovascular disease (excluding death from heart failure), nonfatal MI, or fatal and nonfatal ischemic stroke.

Results. No difference was seen between the aspirin and placebo groups in CVD outcomes (10.7 events per 1000 person-years vs 11.3 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.08) or major cardiovascular events (7.8 events per 1000 person-years vs 8.8 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.03). The composite and individual endpoints of fatal cardiovascular disease, heart failure hospitalizations, fatal and nonfatal MI, and ischemic stroke also did not differ significantly between the groups.

Because of this trial, the ACC and AHA have updated their guidelines on primary prevention of CVD to recommend against the routine use of aspirin in patients > 70 years of age.

The rate of major hemorrhagic events (composite of hemorrhagic stroke, intracranial bleed, or extracranial bleed), however, was higher in the aspirin vs the placebo group (8.6 events per 1000 person-years vs 6.2 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; HR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6; number needed to harm = 98).

WHAT’S NEW

Finding of more harm than good leads to change in ACC/AHA guidelines

Although the most recent USPSTF guidelines state the evidence is insufficient to assess the risks and benefits of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in this age group, this trial reveals there is a greater risk of hemorrhagic events than there is prevention of cardiovascular outcomes with aspirin use in healthy elderly patients > 70 years of age.⁶ Because of this trial, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have updated their guidelines on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease to recommend that aspirin not be used routinely in patients > 70 years of age.⁷

CAVEATS

Potential benefit to people at higher risk?

The rate of cardiovascular disease was lower than expected in this overall healthy population, so it is not known if cardiovascular benefits may outweigh the risk of bleeding in a higher-risk population. The trial also didn’t address the potential harms of deprescribing aspirin. Additionally, although aspirin may not be protective for cardiovascular events and may lead to more bleeding, there may be other benefits to aspirin in this patient population that were not addressed by this study.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Popular beliefs and wide availability may make tide difficult to change

Patients have been told for years to take a daily aspirin to “protect their heart”; this behavior may be difficult to change. And because aspirin is widely available over the counter, patients may take it without their physician’s knowledge.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

The VOYAGER PAD results from more than 6,500 patients created the biggest evidence base by far ever collected from patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) who underwent a vascular intervention, and showed that the combination of twice-daily rivaroxaban and once-daily aspirin was safe and more effective than aspirin alone for reducing future thrombotic and ischemic events.

Following that report on March 28, a prespecified subgroup analysis presented the next day showed that adding clopidogrel to this two-drug combination produced no added efficacy but caused additional bleeding episodes, suggesting that the common practice of using clopidogrel plus aspirin in these patients, especially those who receive a stent in a peripheral artery, should either fall by the wayside or be used very briefly.

“In the absence of clear benefit, clopidogrel exposure along with aspirin and rivaroxaban should be minimized or avoided to reduce this risk,” William R. Hiatt, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But he also cautioned that “we did not control for clopidogrel use, and so the patients who received clopidogrel look different [from patients who did not receive clopidogrel]. We must be cautious in interpreting differences between patients on or off clopidogrel,” warned Dr. Hiatt, a lead investigator for VOYAGER PAD, professor for cardiovascular research at the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora and president of the affiliated Colorado Prevention Center.

In addition to this substantial caveat, the finding that clopidogrel appeared to add no extra benefit to the rivaroxaban/aspirin regimen “contradicts some dogmas that have been in the field for decades,” Dr. Hiatt said. Use of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), in this setting usually aspirin and clopidogrel, in patients who have just undergone lower-extremity revascularization is “current dogma,” even though it is not based on any direct evidence for efficacy, but instead came on the scene as “an extrapolation from the coronary artery literature, where it does have some benefit, particularly after percutaneous coronary intervention,” he explained.

The only reported study results to examine use of DAPT in patients who underwent peripheral artery revascularization focused entirely on patients who had a surgical procedure and showed no added benefit from DAPT over aspirin only in a multicenter, randomized trial with 851 patients (J Vasc Surg. 2010 Oct;52[4]:825-33), Dr. Hiatt noted. In VOYAGER PAD, two-thirds of all patients underwent an endovascular, not surgical, peripheral intervention, and among those treated with clopidogrel, 91% had endovascular treatment.

“We’re not saying don’t use DAPT, but patients on three drugs are at higher bleeding risk than patients on two drugs. I think our data also suggest starting rivaroxaban immediately after a procedure [as was done in VOYAGER PAD], and not waiting to complete a course of DAPT,” Dr. Hiatt said.

Other experts embraced Dr. Hiatt’s take on these findings, while warning that it may take some time for the message to penetrate into practice.

The overall VOYAGER PAD results “are practice changing for vascular interventions; it was by an order of magnitude the largest vascular intervention trial ever conducted,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a designated discussant, interventional cardiologist, and director of endovascular services at New York–Presbyterian Medical Center. “The data suggest that the value of clopidogrel is questionable, but the added hazard is not questionable” when given to patients on top of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The results “certainly beg the question of whether one should use DAPT at all, and if so, for how long.”

Use of DAPT in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization, especially patients receiving a stent, has been “dogma,” Dr. Parikh agreed. “It’s been pounded into our heads that DAPT is standard care, so it will take some time to penetrate into the practicing community.”

“Could there be patients who could benefit from triple therapy? That’s possible, but it needs testing,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “We’ve made terrific strides with the results from VOYAGER PAD,” and from the earlier COMPASS trial, which proved the benefit of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease including many PAD patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). Use of rivaroxaban and aspirin in PAD patients based on the COMPASS results “is beginning to make an impact, but has a long way to go,” Dr. Creager said in an interview.

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration gave rivaroxaban a revised labeling that included an indication for patients with PAD based on the COMPASS findings. The VOYAGER PAD and COMPASS trials are especially noteworthy because “they opened a whole area [of study] in patients with peripheral vascular disease, ” he added.

The prespecified analysis that Dr. Hiatt reported analyzed outcomes among the 51% of patients enrolled in VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) who received clopidogrel during follow-up at the discretion of their treating physician and the outcomes among the remainder who did not. The two subgroups showed several statistically significant differences in the prevalence of various comorbidities and in some baseline demographic and clinical metrics, and the analyses that Dr. Hiatt reported did not attempt to correct for these differences. Patients who received clopidogrel had the drug on board for a median of 29 days, and about 58% received it for 30 days or less.

The main finding of his analysis was that “adding clopidogrel did not modify benefit at all” from the perspective of the primary endpoint of VOYAGER PAD, the incidence of a five-item list of adverse events (acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death) during a median follow-up of 28 months (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052), said Dr. Hiatt. Among patients on clopidogrel, those treated with both rivaroxaban and aspirin had a 16.0% incidence of the primary endpoint, compared with an 18.3% rate among patients on aspirin only, for a 15% relative risk reduction, identical to the study’s primary result. Among patients not on clopidogrel, the primary endpoint occurred in 18.7% of patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin and in 21.5% of those on aspirin only, a 14% relative risk reduction. The analyses also showed that adding clopidogrel appeared to increase the rate of bleeding episodes, particularly the incidence of major bleeds by the criteria of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), which rose among patients on aspirin alone from 3.3% without clopidogrel treatment to 4.9% with clopidogrel, and in patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin these major bleeds increased from 5.4% with no clopidogrel to 6.5% with clopidogrel.

An especially revealing further analysis showed that, among those who also received rivaroxaban and aspirin, clopidogrel treatment for more than 30 days led to substantially more bleeding problems, compared with patients who received the drug for 30 days or less. Patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days as part of a triple-drug regimen had a 3.0% rate of major ISTH bleeds during 180 days of follow-up, compared with a 0.9% rate for patients in the aspirin-alone group who also received clopidogrel, a 2.1% between-group difference. In contrast, the difference in major ISTH bleeds between the two treatment arms in the subgroup who received clopidogrel for 30 days or less was 0.7%.

“What’s inarguable is that the course of clopidogrel should be as short as possible, probably not more than 30 days unless there is a real extenuating rationale,” commented designated discussant Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Hiatt leads has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen and from Amgen. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to Terumo; has received research funding from Shockwave, Surmodics, and Trireme; has worked on trial monitoring for Boston Scientific and Silk Road; and has had other financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Piazza has received research grants from Bayer and Janssen, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Diiachi, EKOS, and Portola, and he has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hiatt WR et al. ACC 20, Abstract 406-13.

The VOYAGER PAD results from more than 6,500 patients created the biggest evidence base by far ever collected from patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) who underwent a vascular intervention, and showed that the combination of twice-daily rivaroxaban and once-daily aspirin was safe and more effective than aspirin alone for reducing future thrombotic and ischemic events.

Following that report on March 28, a prespecified subgroup analysis presented the next day showed that adding clopidogrel to this two-drug combination produced no added efficacy but caused additional bleeding episodes, suggesting that the common practice of using clopidogrel plus aspirin in these patients, especially those who receive a stent in a peripheral artery, should either fall by the wayside or be used very briefly.

“In the absence of clear benefit, clopidogrel exposure along with aspirin and rivaroxaban should be minimized or avoided to reduce this risk,” William R. Hiatt, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But he also cautioned that “we did not control for clopidogrel use, and so the patients who received clopidogrel look different [from patients who did not receive clopidogrel]. We must be cautious in interpreting differences between patients on or off clopidogrel,” warned Dr. Hiatt, a lead investigator for VOYAGER PAD, professor for cardiovascular research at the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora and president of the affiliated Colorado Prevention Center.

In addition to this substantial caveat, the finding that clopidogrel appeared to add no extra benefit to the rivaroxaban/aspirin regimen “contradicts some dogmas that have been in the field for decades,” Dr. Hiatt said. Use of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), in this setting usually aspirin and clopidogrel, in patients who have just undergone lower-extremity revascularization is “current dogma,” even though it is not based on any direct evidence for efficacy, but instead came on the scene as “an extrapolation from the coronary artery literature, where it does have some benefit, particularly after percutaneous coronary intervention,” he explained.

The only reported study results to examine use of DAPT in patients who underwent peripheral artery revascularization focused entirely on patients who had a surgical procedure and showed no added benefit from DAPT over aspirin only in a multicenter, randomized trial with 851 patients (J Vasc Surg. 2010 Oct;52[4]:825-33), Dr. Hiatt noted. In VOYAGER PAD, two-thirds of all patients underwent an endovascular, not surgical, peripheral intervention, and among those treated with clopidogrel, 91% had endovascular treatment.

“We’re not saying don’t use DAPT, but patients on three drugs are at higher bleeding risk than patients on two drugs. I think our data also suggest starting rivaroxaban immediately after a procedure [as was done in VOYAGER PAD], and not waiting to complete a course of DAPT,” Dr. Hiatt said.

Other experts embraced Dr. Hiatt’s take on these findings, while warning that it may take some time for the message to penetrate into practice.

The overall VOYAGER PAD results “are practice changing for vascular interventions; it was by an order of magnitude the largest vascular intervention trial ever conducted,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a designated discussant, interventional cardiologist, and director of endovascular services at New York–Presbyterian Medical Center. “The data suggest that the value of clopidogrel is questionable, but the added hazard is not questionable” when given to patients on top of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The results “certainly beg the question of whether one should use DAPT at all, and if so, for how long.”

Use of DAPT in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization, especially patients receiving a stent, has been “dogma,” Dr. Parikh agreed. “It’s been pounded into our heads that DAPT is standard care, so it will take some time to penetrate into the practicing community.”

“Could there be patients who could benefit from triple therapy? That’s possible, but it needs testing,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “We’ve made terrific strides with the results from VOYAGER PAD,” and from the earlier COMPASS trial, which proved the benefit of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease including many PAD patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). Use of rivaroxaban and aspirin in PAD patients based on the COMPASS results “is beginning to make an impact, but has a long way to go,” Dr. Creager said in an interview.

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration gave rivaroxaban a revised labeling that included an indication for patients with PAD based on the COMPASS findings. The VOYAGER PAD and COMPASS trials are especially noteworthy because “they opened a whole area [of study] in patients with peripheral vascular disease, ” he added.

The prespecified analysis that Dr. Hiatt reported analyzed outcomes among the 51% of patients enrolled in VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) who received clopidogrel during follow-up at the discretion of their treating physician and the outcomes among the remainder who did not. The two subgroups showed several statistically significant differences in the prevalence of various comorbidities and in some baseline demographic and clinical metrics, and the analyses that Dr. Hiatt reported did not attempt to correct for these differences. Patients who received clopidogrel had the drug on board for a median of 29 days, and about 58% received it for 30 days or less.

The main finding of his analysis was that “adding clopidogrel did not modify benefit at all” from the perspective of the primary endpoint of VOYAGER PAD, the incidence of a five-item list of adverse events (acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death) during a median follow-up of 28 months (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052), said Dr. Hiatt. Among patients on clopidogrel, those treated with both rivaroxaban and aspirin had a 16.0% incidence of the primary endpoint, compared with an 18.3% rate among patients on aspirin only, for a 15% relative risk reduction, identical to the study’s primary result. Among patients not on clopidogrel, the primary endpoint occurred in 18.7% of patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin and in 21.5% of those on aspirin only, a 14% relative risk reduction. The analyses also showed that adding clopidogrel appeared to increase the rate of bleeding episodes, particularly the incidence of major bleeds by the criteria of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), which rose among patients on aspirin alone from 3.3% without clopidogrel treatment to 4.9% with clopidogrel, and in patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin these major bleeds increased from 5.4% with no clopidogrel to 6.5% with clopidogrel.

An especially revealing further analysis showed that, among those who also received rivaroxaban and aspirin, clopidogrel treatment for more than 30 days led to substantially more bleeding problems, compared with patients who received the drug for 30 days or less. Patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days as part of a triple-drug regimen had a 3.0% rate of major ISTH bleeds during 180 days of follow-up, compared with a 0.9% rate for patients in the aspirin-alone group who also received clopidogrel, a 2.1% between-group difference. In contrast, the difference in major ISTH bleeds between the two treatment arms in the subgroup who received clopidogrel for 30 days or less was 0.7%.

“What’s inarguable is that the course of clopidogrel should be as short as possible, probably not more than 30 days unless there is a real extenuating rationale,” commented designated discussant Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Hiatt leads has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen and from Amgen. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to Terumo; has received research funding from Shockwave, Surmodics, and Trireme; has worked on trial monitoring for Boston Scientific and Silk Road; and has had other financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Piazza has received research grants from Bayer and Janssen, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Diiachi, EKOS, and Portola, and he has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hiatt WR et al. ACC 20, Abstract 406-13.

The VOYAGER PAD results from more than 6,500 patients created the biggest evidence base by far ever collected from patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) who underwent a vascular intervention, and showed that the combination of twice-daily rivaroxaban and once-daily aspirin was safe and more effective than aspirin alone for reducing future thrombotic and ischemic events.

Following that report on March 28, a prespecified subgroup analysis presented the next day showed that adding clopidogrel to this two-drug combination produced no added efficacy but caused additional bleeding episodes, suggesting that the common practice of using clopidogrel plus aspirin in these patients, especially those who receive a stent in a peripheral artery, should either fall by the wayside or be used very briefly.

“In the absence of clear benefit, clopidogrel exposure along with aspirin and rivaroxaban should be minimized or avoided to reduce this risk,” William R. Hiatt, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But he also cautioned that “we did not control for clopidogrel use, and so the patients who received clopidogrel look different [from patients who did not receive clopidogrel]. We must be cautious in interpreting differences between patients on or off clopidogrel,” warned Dr. Hiatt, a lead investigator for VOYAGER PAD, professor for cardiovascular research at the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora and president of the affiliated Colorado Prevention Center.

In addition to this substantial caveat, the finding that clopidogrel appeared to add no extra benefit to the rivaroxaban/aspirin regimen “contradicts some dogmas that have been in the field for decades,” Dr. Hiatt said. Use of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), in this setting usually aspirin and clopidogrel, in patients who have just undergone lower-extremity revascularization is “current dogma,” even though it is not based on any direct evidence for efficacy, but instead came on the scene as “an extrapolation from the coronary artery literature, where it does have some benefit, particularly after percutaneous coronary intervention,” he explained.

The only reported study results to examine use of DAPT in patients who underwent peripheral artery revascularization focused entirely on patients who had a surgical procedure and showed no added benefit from DAPT over aspirin only in a multicenter, randomized trial with 851 patients (J Vasc Surg. 2010 Oct;52[4]:825-33), Dr. Hiatt noted. In VOYAGER PAD, two-thirds of all patients underwent an endovascular, not surgical, peripheral intervention, and among those treated with clopidogrel, 91% had endovascular treatment.

“We’re not saying don’t use DAPT, but patients on three drugs are at higher bleeding risk than patients on two drugs. I think our data also suggest starting rivaroxaban immediately after a procedure [as was done in VOYAGER PAD], and not waiting to complete a course of DAPT,” Dr. Hiatt said.

Other experts embraced Dr. Hiatt’s take on these findings, while warning that it may take some time for the message to penetrate into practice.

The overall VOYAGER PAD results “are practice changing for vascular interventions; it was by an order of magnitude the largest vascular intervention trial ever conducted,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a designated discussant, interventional cardiologist, and director of endovascular services at New York–Presbyterian Medical Center. “The data suggest that the value of clopidogrel is questionable, but the added hazard is not questionable” when given to patients on top of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The results “certainly beg the question of whether one should use DAPT at all, and if so, for how long.”

Use of DAPT in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization, especially patients receiving a stent, has been “dogma,” Dr. Parikh agreed. “It’s been pounded into our heads that DAPT is standard care, so it will take some time to penetrate into the practicing community.”

“Could there be patients who could benefit from triple therapy? That’s possible, but it needs testing,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “We’ve made terrific strides with the results from VOYAGER PAD,” and from the earlier COMPASS trial, which proved the benefit of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease including many PAD patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). Use of rivaroxaban and aspirin in PAD patients based on the COMPASS results “is beginning to make an impact, but has a long way to go,” Dr. Creager said in an interview.

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration gave rivaroxaban a revised labeling that included an indication for patients with PAD based on the COMPASS findings. The VOYAGER PAD and COMPASS trials are especially noteworthy because “they opened a whole area [of study] in patients with peripheral vascular disease, ” he added.

The prespecified analysis that Dr. Hiatt reported analyzed outcomes among the 51% of patients enrolled in VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) who received clopidogrel during follow-up at the discretion of their treating physician and the outcomes among the remainder who did not. The two subgroups showed several statistically significant differences in the prevalence of various comorbidities and in some baseline demographic and clinical metrics, and the analyses that Dr. Hiatt reported did not attempt to correct for these differences. Patients who received clopidogrel had the drug on board for a median of 29 days, and about 58% received it for 30 days or less.

The main finding of his analysis was that “adding clopidogrel did not modify benefit at all” from the perspective of the primary endpoint of VOYAGER PAD, the incidence of a five-item list of adverse events (acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death) during a median follow-up of 28 months (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052), said Dr. Hiatt. Among patients on clopidogrel, those treated with both rivaroxaban and aspirin had a 16.0% incidence of the primary endpoint, compared with an 18.3% rate among patients on aspirin only, for a 15% relative risk reduction, identical to the study’s primary result. Among patients not on clopidogrel, the primary endpoint occurred in 18.7% of patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin and in 21.5% of those on aspirin only, a 14% relative risk reduction. The analyses also showed that adding clopidogrel appeared to increase the rate of bleeding episodes, particularly the incidence of major bleeds by the criteria of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), which rose among patients on aspirin alone from 3.3% without clopidogrel treatment to 4.9% with clopidogrel, and in patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin these major bleeds increased from 5.4% with no clopidogrel to 6.5% with clopidogrel.

An especially revealing further analysis showed that, among those who also received rivaroxaban and aspirin, clopidogrel treatment for more than 30 days led to substantially more bleeding problems, compared with patients who received the drug for 30 days or less. Patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days as part of a triple-drug regimen had a 3.0% rate of major ISTH bleeds during 180 days of follow-up, compared with a 0.9% rate for patients in the aspirin-alone group who also received clopidogrel, a 2.1% between-group difference. In contrast, the difference in major ISTH bleeds between the two treatment arms in the subgroup who received clopidogrel for 30 days or less was 0.7%.

“What’s inarguable is that the course of clopidogrel should be as short as possible, probably not more than 30 days unless there is a real extenuating rationale,” commented designated discussant Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Hiatt leads has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen and from Amgen. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to Terumo; has received research funding from Shockwave, Surmodics, and Trireme; has worked on trial monitoring for Boston Scientific and Silk Road; and has had other financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Piazza has received research grants from Bayer and Janssen, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Diiachi, EKOS, and Portola, and he has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hiatt WR et al. ACC 20, Abstract 406-13.

PHOENIX, ARIZ. – Diabetes patients in China who were enrolled in a team-based care intervention with clinical decision support systems significantly reduced their hemoglobin A_1c, systolic blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol over 18 months, compared with those who received team-based care alone.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The finding comes from the Diabetes Complication Control in Community Clinics (D4C), a cluster randomized trial conducted in 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China.

“Diabetes has become a major public health challenge worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries where populations are large and growing and health care resources are limited,” Jiang He, MD, PhD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

According to Dr. He, chair and professor of epidemiology at Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, the prevalence of diabetes has increased rapidly in recent decades in China, from 2.5% in 1994 to 11.6% in 2010. “It was estimated that 114 million Chinese adults had diabetes in 2010,” he said. “Hyperglycemia, high blood pressure, and elevated LDL cholesterol are major risk factors for cardiovascular disease and premature death. The majority of patients with diabetes have multiple uncontrolled CVD risk factors due to suboptimal care. Diabetes and its complications further strain an already overburdened and overwhelmed health care system, especially tertiary care facilities, in China. On the other hand, community health centers are underutilized.”

In D4C, Dr. He and colleagues set out to evaluate changes in CVD risk factors among patients with diabetes after implementing a team-based care model at community health centers in Xiamen, China. They compared the effectiveness of team-based care with clinical decision support systems versus team-based care alone on CVD risk factor control among patients with diabetes at these community health centers.

The study population consisted of 10,942 patients aged 50 years and older with uncontrolled diabetes and at least one of the following three additional CVD risk factors: systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg; LDL cholesterol of at least 100 mg/dL, or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). At the intervention clinics, team-based care was delivered by a team of primary care physicians, nurses, and diabetes specialists. The researchers trained the primary care physicians and nurses, and a clinical decision support system was integrated with guideline-based treatment algorithms for controlling glycemia, blood pressure, and lipids.

At the enhanced care control clinics, team-based care was delivered by a team of primary care physicians, nurses, and diabetes specialists. The city health commission trained the primary care physicians and nurses. The intervention lasted for 18 months in both groups.

Dr. He, the D4C study chair, reported findings from 10,942 patients: 5,394 in the intervention group and 5,548 in the enhanced care group. The mean baseline age was similar between the intervention group and the enhanced care group (a mean of 63 years), as was body mass index (a mean of 24.9 kg/m²), hemoglobin A_1c (a mean of 8.8 vs. 8.7%, respectively), LDL cholesterol (121.2 vs. 121.1 mg/dL), systolic blood pressure (136.6 vs. 136.9 mm Hg), and diastolic blood pressure (79.7 vs. 79.8 mm Hg).

The researchers found patients in both groups experienced significant reductions in HbA_1c, LDL cholesterol, and BP over the 18-month follow-up, but those in the intervention group fared better in all measures. Specifically, the mean change in HbA_1c from baseline was –.85% in the intervention group, compared with –.66% in the enhanced care group, while the change in LDL was –19 mg/dL, compared with –12.8 mg/dL, respectively; the change in systolic blood pressure was –8.9 mm Hg vs. –7.7 mm Hg, and the change in 10-year ASCVD risk was .57% vs. .28% (P < .0001 for all associations).

The researchers also observed that the proportions of controlled HbA_1c, LDL, and blood pressure at 18 months were higher in the intervention group, compared with the enhanced care group. Specifically, 38% of patients in the intervention group achieved glycemic control, compared with 35% of those in the enhanced care group (P =. 0006), while 48% vs. 39%, respectively, achieved control of LDL cholesterol (P < .0001), and 78% vs. 75% achieved control of blood pressure (P = .0009). In addition, 15% vs. 12% achieved control of all three risk factors at 18 months (P < .0001).

“Implementing team-based care with a clinical decision support system is an effective and sustainable strategy for diabetes control in primary care settings,” Dr. He said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “This implementation strategy could be scaled up within primary care settings in China and other low- to middle-income countries to improve CVD risk factor control in patients with diabetes.”

In an interview, session moderator Joshua J. Joseph, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, pointed out that since only 12%-15% of study participants achieved control of all three CVD risk factors, “that leaves a great opportunity for [figuring out] how to we get the other 88% or 85% of patients to target levels. That’s going to be important as we think about cardiovascular disease prevention in type 2 diabetes. The more we can use team-based care along with clinical decision support tools, the more we will continue to improve the lives of patients.”

The study was supported by the Xiamen City Health Commission. Dr. He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: He J et al. EPI/LIFESTYLE 2020, session 7A, abstract 17.

PHOENIX, ARIZ. – Diabetes patients in China who were enrolled in a team-based care intervention with clinical decision support systems significantly reduced their hemoglobin A_1c, systolic blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol over 18 months, compared with those who received team-based care alone.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The finding comes from the Diabetes Complication Control in Community Clinics (D4C), a cluster randomized trial conducted in 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China.

“Diabetes has become a major public health challenge worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries where populations are large and growing and health care resources are limited,” Jiang He, MD, PhD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

According to Dr. He, chair and professor of epidemiology at Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, the prevalence of diabetes has increased rapidly in recent decades in China, from 2.5% in 1994 to 11.6% in 2010. “It was estimated that 114 million Chinese adults had diabetes in 2010,” he said. “Hyperglycemia, high blood pressure, and elevated LDL cholesterol are major risk factors for cardiovascular disease and premature death. The majority of patients with diabetes have multiple uncontrolled CVD risk factors due to suboptimal care. Diabetes and its complications further strain an already overburdened and overwhelmed health care system, especially tertiary care facilities, in China. On the other hand, community health centers are underutilized.”

In D4C, Dr. He and colleagues set out to evaluate changes in CVD risk factors among patients with diabetes after implementing a team-based care model at community health centers in Xiamen, China. They compared the effectiveness of team-based care with clinical decision support systems versus team-based care alone on CVD risk factor control among patients with diabetes at these community health centers.

The study population consisted of 10,942 patients aged 50 years and older with uncontrolled diabetes and at least one of the following three additional CVD risk factors: systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg; LDL cholesterol of at least 100 mg/dL, or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). At the intervention clinics, team-based care was delivered by a team of primary care physicians, nurses, and diabetes specialists. The researchers trained the primary care physicians and nurses, and a clinical decision support system was integrated with guideline-based treatment algorithms for controlling glycemia, blood pressure, and lipids.

At the enhanced care control clinics, team-based care was delivered by a team of primary care physicians, nurses, and diabetes specialists. The city health commission trained the primary care physicians and nurses. The intervention lasted for 18 months in both groups.

Dr. He, the D4C study chair, reported findings from 10,942 patients: 5,394 in the intervention group and 5,548 in the enhanced care group. The mean baseline age was similar between the intervention group and the enhanced care group (a mean of 63 years), as was body mass index (a mean of 24.9 kg/m²), hemoglobin A_1c (a mean of 8.8 vs. 8.7%, respectively), LDL cholesterol (121.2 vs. 121.1 mg/dL), systolic blood pressure (136.6 vs. 136.9 mm Hg), and diastolic blood pressure (79.7 vs. 79.8 mm Hg).

The researchers found patients in both groups experienced significant reductions in HbA_1c, LDL cholesterol, and BP over the 18-month follow-up, but those in the intervention group fared better in all measures. Specifically, the mean change in HbA_1c from baseline was –.85% in the intervention group, compared with –.66% in the enhanced care group, while the change in LDL was –19 mg/dL, compared with –12.8 mg/dL, respectively; the change in systolic blood pressure was –8.9 mm Hg vs. –7.7 mm Hg, and the change in 10-year ASCVD risk was .57% vs. .28% (P < .0001 for all associations).

The researchers also observed that the proportions of controlled HbA_1c, LDL, and blood pressure at 18 months were higher in the intervention group, compared with the enhanced care group. Specifically, 38% of patients in the intervention group achieved glycemic control, compared with 35% of those in the enhanced care group (P =. 0006), while 48% vs. 39%, respectively, achieved control of LDL cholesterol (P < .0001), and 78% vs. 75% achieved control of blood pressure (P = .0009). In addition, 15% vs. 12% achieved control of all three risk factors at 18 months (P < .0001).

“Implementing team-based care with a clinical decision support system is an effective and sustainable strategy for diabetes control in primary care settings,” Dr. He said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “This implementation strategy could be scaled up within primary care settings in China and other low- to middle-income countries to improve CVD risk factor control in patients with diabetes.”

In an interview, session moderator Joshua J. Joseph, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, pointed out that since only 12%-15% of study participants achieved control of all three CVD risk factors, “that leaves a great opportunity for [figuring out] how to we get the other 88% or 85% of patients to target levels. That’s going to be important as we think about cardiovascular disease prevention in type 2 diabetes. The more we can use team-based care along with clinical decision support tools, the more we will continue to improve the lives of patients.”

The study was supported by the Xiamen City Health Commission. Dr. He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: He J et al. EPI/LIFESTYLE 2020, session 7A, abstract 17.

PHOENIX, ARIZ. – Diabetes patients in China who were enrolled in a team-based care intervention with clinical decision support systems significantly reduced their hemoglobin A_1c, systolic blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol over 18 months, compared with those who received team-based care alone.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The finding comes from the Diabetes Complication Control in Community Clinics (D4C), a cluster randomized trial conducted in 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China.

“Diabetes has become a major public health challenge worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries where populations are large and growing and health care resources are limited,” Jiang He, MD, PhD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

According to Dr. He, chair and professor of epidemiology at Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, the prevalence of diabetes has increased rapidly in recent decades in China, from 2.5% in 1994 to 11.6% in 2010. “It was estimated that 114 million Chinese adults had diabetes in 2010,” he said. “Hyperglycemia, high blood pressure, and elevated LDL cholesterol are major risk factors for cardiovascular disease and premature death. The majority of patients with diabetes have multiple uncontrolled CVD risk factors due to suboptimal care. Diabetes and its complications further strain an already overburdened and overwhelmed health care system, especially tertiary care facilities, in China. On the other hand, community health centers are underutilized.”

In D4C, Dr. He and colleagues set out to evaluate changes in CVD risk factors among patients with diabetes after implementing a team-based care model at community health centers in Xiamen, China. They compared the effectiveness of team-based care with clinical decision support systems versus team-based care alone on CVD risk factor control among patients with diabetes at these community health centers.

The study population consisted of 10,942 patients aged 50 years and older with uncontrolled diabetes and at least one of the following three additional CVD risk factors: systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg; LDL cholesterol of at least 100 mg/dL, or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). At the intervention clinics, team-based care was delivered by a team of primary care physicians, nurses, and diabetes specialists. The researchers trained the primary care physicians and nurses, and a clinical decision support system was integrated with guideline-based treatment algorithms for controlling glycemia, blood pressure, and lipids.

At the enhanced care control clinics, team-based care was delivered by a team of primary care physicians, nurses, and diabetes specialists. The city health commission trained the primary care physicians and nurses. The intervention lasted for 18 months in both groups.

Dr. He, the D4C study chair, reported findings from 10,942 patients: 5,394 in the intervention group and 5,548 in the enhanced care group. The mean baseline age was similar between the intervention group and the enhanced care group (a mean of 63 years), as was body mass index (a mean of 24.9 kg/m²), hemoglobin A_1c (a mean of 8.8 vs. 8.7%, respectively), LDL cholesterol (121.2 vs. 121.1 mg/dL), systolic blood pressure (136.6 vs. 136.9 mm Hg), and diastolic blood pressure (79.7 vs. 79.8 mm Hg).

The researchers found patients in both groups experienced significant reductions in HbA_1c, LDL cholesterol, and BP over the 18-month follow-up, but those in the intervention group fared better in all measures. Specifically, the mean change in HbA_1c from baseline was –.85% in the intervention group, compared with –.66% in the enhanced care group, while the change in LDL was –19 mg/dL, compared with –12.8 mg/dL, respectively; the change in systolic blood pressure was –8.9 mm Hg vs. –7.7 mm Hg, and the change in 10-year ASCVD risk was .57% vs. .28% (P < .0001 for all associations).

The researchers also observed that the proportions of controlled HbA_1c, LDL, and blood pressure at 18 months were higher in the intervention group, compared with the enhanced care group. Specifically, 38% of patients in the intervention group achieved glycemic control, compared with 35% of those in the enhanced care group (P =. 0006), while 48% vs. 39%, respectively, achieved control of LDL cholesterol (P < .0001), and 78% vs. 75% achieved control of blood pressure (P = .0009). In addition, 15% vs. 12% achieved control of all three risk factors at 18 months (P < .0001).

“Implementing team-based care with a clinical decision support system is an effective and sustainable strategy for diabetes control in primary care settings,” Dr. He said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “This implementation strategy could be scaled up within primary care settings in China and other low- to middle-income countries to improve CVD risk factor control in patients with diabetes.”

In an interview, session moderator Joshua J. Joseph, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, pointed out that since only 12%-15% of study participants achieved control of all three CVD risk factors, “that leaves a great opportunity for [figuring out] how to we get the other 88% or 85% of patients to target levels. That’s going to be important as we think about cardiovascular disease prevention in type 2 diabetes. The more we can use team-based care along with clinical decision support tools, the more we will continue to improve the lives of patients.”

The study was supported by the Xiamen City Health Commission. Dr. He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: He J et al. EPI/LIFESTYLE 2020, session 7A, abstract 17.

Older adults exposed to air pollution long term – even at fairly low levels – have an increased risk of dementia, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) appears to both modify and mediate this association, according to the results of the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) study.

Virtually all of the association between air pollution and dementia seemed to occur through the presence or the development of cardiovascular disease, which suggests a need to optimize treatment of concurrent cardiovascular disease and risk-factor control in older adults at higher risk for dementia and living in polluted urban areas, said lead author Giulia Grande, MD, a researcher at the Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, in Solna, Sweden.

In the longitudinal, population-based cohort study, investigators studied 2,927 randomly selected residents in a district of Stockholm who were aged 60 years or older (mean, 74.1 years), lived at home or in institutions, and were free of dementia at baseline (March 2001 through August 2004).

The investigators assessed the participants’ exposure to two major air pollutants – particulate matter ≤2.5 mcm and nitrogen oxide – yearly starting in 1990, from outdoor levels at their residential addresses. Both pollutants are generated by road traffic, among other sources.

Results reported in JAMA Neurology showed that, with a mean follow-up of 6.01 years, 12.4% of the older adults received a dementia diagnosis.

Dementia risk increased with the level of air pollutants at their residential address in the past, with strongest associations seen for exposure in the preceding 5 years: The hazard ratio (HR) for dementia was 1.54 for an interquartile range difference of 0.88 mcg/m³ in particulate matter ≤2.5 mcm and 1.14 for an interquartile range difference of 8.35 mcg/m³ in nitrogen oxide during that time period.

Of note, the study cohort lived in an area having “comparatively good ambient air quality” in which restrictions on air pollution have increased in recent decades, Dr. Grande and coinvestigators noted. “Interestingly, the higher limit reported herein is not only below the current European limit for fine particulate matter but also below the US standard. In other words, we were able to establish harmful effects at levels below current standards,” they wrote.

In analyses of effect modification, the elevation of risk related to particulate matter ≤2.5 mcm exposure and nitrogen oxide exposure was significantly greater among older adults who had heart failure (HRs, 1.93 and 1.43, respectively). Risk was marginally greater among those with ischemic heart disease (HRs, 1.67 and 1.36, respectively).

Analyses of potential mediators showed that preceding stroke accounted for the largest share of all dementia cases related to particulate matter ≤2.5 mcm exposure, at 49.4%.

The stronger association for exposure in the past 5 years is noteworthy for the big picture, they added. “From a policy point of view, this result is encouraging because it might imply that reducing air pollutant levels today could yield better outcomes already in the shorter term, reinforcing the need for appropriately set air quality standards,” they said.

Dr. Grande disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K); the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs; the participating County Councils and Municipalities; the Swedish Research Council; funding for doctoral education from the Karolinska Institutet; and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare.

SOURCE: Grande G et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4914.
 

Older adults exposed to air pollution long term – even at fairly low levels – have an increased risk of dementia, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) appears to both modify and mediate this association, according to the results of the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) study.

Virtually all of the association between air pollution and dementia seemed to occur through the presence or the development of cardiovascular disease, which suggests a need to optimize treatment of concurrent cardiovascular disease and risk-factor control in older adults at higher risk for dementia and living in polluted urban areas, said lead author Giulia Grande, MD, a researcher at the Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, in Solna, Sweden.

In the longitudinal, population-based cohort study, investigators studied 2,927 randomly selected residents in a district of Stockholm who were aged 60 years or older (mean, 74.1 years), lived at home or in institutions, and were free of dementia at baseline (March 2001 through August 2004).

The investigators assessed the participants’ exposure to two major air pollutants – particulate matter ≤2.5 mcm and nitrogen oxide – yearly starting in 1990, from outdoor levels at their residential addresses. Both pollutants are generated by road traffic, among other sources.

Results reported in JAMA Neurology showed that, with a mean follow-up of 6.01 years, 12.4% of the older adults received a dementia diagnosis.

Dementia risk increased with the level of air pollutants at their residential address in the past, with strongest associations seen for exposure in the preceding 5 years: The hazard ratio (HR) for dementia was 1.54 for an interquartile range difference of 0.88 mcg/m³ in particulate matter ≤2.5 mcm and 1.14 for an interquartile range difference of 8.35 mcg/m³ in nitrogen oxide during that time period.

Of note, the study cohort lived in an area having “comparatively good ambient air quality” in which restrictions on air pollution have increased in recent decades, Dr. Grande and coinvestigators noted. “Interestingly, the higher limit reported herein is not only below the current European limit for fine particulate matter but also below the US standard. In other words, we were able to establish harmful effects at levels below current standards,” they wrote.

In analyses of effect modification, the elevation of risk related to particulate matter ≤2.5 mcm exposure and nitrogen oxide exposure was significantly greater among older adults who had heart failure (HRs, 1.93 and 1.43, respectively). Risk was marginally greater among those with ischemic heart disease (HRs, 1.67 and 1.36, respectively).

Analyses of potential mediators showed that preceding stroke accounted for the largest share of all dementia cases related to particulate matter ≤2.5 mcm exposure, at 49.4%.

The stronger association for exposure in the past 5 years is noteworthy for the big picture, they added. “From a policy point of view, this result is encouraging because it might imply that reducing air pollutant levels today could yield better outcomes already in the shorter term, reinforcing the need for appropriately set air quality standards,” they said.

Dr. Grande disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K); the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs; the participating County Councils and Municipalities; the Swedish Research Council; funding for doctoral education from the Karolinska Institutet; and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare.

SOURCE: Grande G et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4914.
 

Older adults exposed to air pollution long term – even at fairly low levels – have an increased risk of dementia, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) appears to both modify and mediate this association, according to the results of the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) study.

Virtually all of the association between air pollution and dementia seemed to occur through the presence or the development of cardiovascular disease, which suggests a need to optimize treatment of concurrent cardiovascular disease and risk-factor control in older adults at higher risk for dementia and living in polluted urban areas, said lead author Giulia Grande, MD, a researcher at the Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, in Solna, Sweden.

In the longitudinal, population-based cohort study, investigators studied 2,927 randomly selected residents in a district of Stockholm who were aged 60 years or older (mean, 74.1 years), lived at home or in institutions, and were free of dementia at baseline (March 2001 through August 2004).

The investigators assessed the participants’ exposure to two major air pollutants – particulate matter ≤2.5 mcm and nitrogen oxide – yearly starting in 1990, from outdoor levels at their residential addresses. Both pollutants are generated by road traffic, among other sources.

Results reported in JAMA Neurology showed that, with a mean follow-up of 6.01 years, 12.4% of the older adults received a dementia diagnosis.

Dementia risk increased with the level of air pollutants at their residential address in the past, with strongest associations seen for exposure in the preceding 5 years: The hazard ratio (HR) for dementia was 1.54 for an interquartile range difference of 0.88 mcg/m³ in particulate matter ≤2.5 mcm and 1.14 for an interquartile range difference of 8.35 mcg/m³ in nitrogen oxide during that time period.

Of note, the study cohort lived in an area having “comparatively good ambient air quality” in which restrictions on air pollution have increased in recent decades, Dr. Grande and coinvestigators noted. “Interestingly, the higher limit reported herein is not only below the current European limit for fine particulate matter but also below the US standard. In other words, we were able to establish harmful effects at levels below current standards,” they wrote.

In analyses of effect modification, the elevation of risk related to particulate matter ≤2.5 mcm exposure and nitrogen oxide exposure was significantly greater among older adults who had heart failure (HRs, 1.93 and 1.43, respectively). Risk was marginally greater among those with ischemic heart disease (HRs, 1.67 and 1.36, respectively).

Analyses of potential mediators showed that preceding stroke accounted for the largest share of all dementia cases related to particulate matter ≤2.5 mcm exposure, at 49.4%.

The stronger association for exposure in the past 5 years is noteworthy for the big picture, they added. “From a policy point of view, this result is encouraging because it might imply that reducing air pollutant levels today could yield better outcomes already in the shorter term, reinforcing the need for appropriately set air quality standards,” they said.

Dr. Grande disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K); the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs; the participating County Councils and Municipalities; the Swedish Research Council; funding for doctoral education from the Karolinska Institutet; and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare.

SOURCE: Grande G et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4914.
 

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

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

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

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

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

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

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intervene with caution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Establish plans now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

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

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

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

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intervene with caution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Establish plans now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

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

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

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

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intervene with caution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Establish plans now

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evinacumab, the first agent from a new class of lipid-lowering drugs, showed a “remarkable” and unprecedented level of LDL-cholesterol lowering in a pivotal trial with 65 patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia.

Monthly intravenous infusions of evinacumab cut LDL cholesterol levels by an average of 135 mg/dL from baseline, a 47% mean reduction, after 24 weeks of treatment in 43 homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) patients, Frederick Raal, MBChB, said on March 30 in a video presentation of his research at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

Evinacumab is a human monoclonal antibody inhibitor of angiopoietin-like 3, a liver protein that boosts levels of LDL cholesterol and triglycerides (TG).

Another notable effect of the novel agent was that it was equally effective in the roughly one-third of patients with a minimal residual level of LDL receptor activity, patients know as having “null/null” mutations. “For the first time, we see HoFH patients getting to [lipid] targets that we never thought would be possible,” said Dr. Raal, professor and head of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. “This works in patients without residual LDL receptor function.” The drug was also generally very well tolerated, he said, causing no treatment-related serious adverse events during the brief treatment period of 24 weeks.

“One of the major, remarkable findings in this study was the effect on null/null patients,” which contrasts with the effects of other, more established drugs for treating dyslipidemia like statins and PCSK9 inhibitors, which work by increasing the number of LDL receptors on cells. The demonstrated efficacy and safety of evinacumab in null/null patients “is a definite advance,” commented Anne C. Goldberg, MD, a lipidologist and professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

The placebo-controlled trial randomized patients at 30 sites in 11 countries who were at least 12 years old and had documented mutations in both of their LDL receptor genes and a serum level of LDL cholesterol that was at least 500 mg/dL on no treatment. Patients averaged about 40 years of age; about 30% had null/null mutations, more than 90% were on statin treatment, and about three-quarters were receiving regular treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor. At baseline, LDL cholesterol levels averaged about 250 mg/dL.

The study’s primary endpoint was the between-group percentage change in LDL cholesterol level after 24 weeks, which fell by 47% from baseline with evinacumab treatment and increased by an average of 2% among 22 patients who received placebo injections; so evinacumab cut this measure by 49%, compared with placebo after 24 weeks, a statistically significant difference. A cut of baseline LDL cholesterol by at least 50% occurred in 56% of the evinacumab-treated patients and in 5% of controls.

In addition to its LDL reduction, another notable effect of evinacumab was that it trimmed baseline triglyceride levels by half, consistent with prior reports of the drug’s effect on this measure, although average triglyceride levels in the enrolled patients fell within the normal range prior to treatment.

Evinacumab “will probably be very effective in treating patients with hypertriglyceridemia; those studies are ongoing,” noted Dr. Raal. But, he added, “this drug will probably be reserved for severe” dyslipidemia cases, not for “the garden variety of moderate hypertriglyceridemia or hypercholesterolemia.”

Evinacumab “may be a fairly broad-spectrum lipid-lowering drug, but it should be reserved for severe cases,” agreed Dirk Blom, MBChB, head of lipidology at the University of Capetown, South Africa. “This will likely remain a fairly expensive drug, and we wouldn’t want to use it across the board, but for difficult to treat patients with either severe hypercholesterolemia or hypertriglyceridemia, I think this will have very significant advantages,” he commented.

“Drugs that reduce triglycerides by large amounts may prove to have cardiovascular disease benefits, but that remains to be proven in large, long-term outcome trials,” commented Deepak Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “But for right now, for most patients with more common forms of elevated LDL cholesterol, the treatment options include statins, ezetimibe [Zetia], and PCSK9 inhibitors, and for more common levels of elevated triglycerides, it’s icosapent ethyl [Vascepa],” Dr. Bhatt said.

The study was sponsored by Regeneron, the company developing evinacumab and which is partially owned by Sanofi. Dr. Raal has received personal fees and/or research funding from Regeneron, Sanofi Aventis, Amgen, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Goldberg has received research funding and/or consulting fees from Regeneron and Sanofi, Akcea, Amarin, Amgen, Esperion, Ionis, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Blom has been a consultant to and/or received research funding from Regeneron, Sanofi, Aegerium, Akcea, Amgen, Amryt, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Gemphire, MSD, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from many companies including Regeneron and Sanofi.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Raal F. ACC 20. Abstract 411-12.

Evinacumab, the first agent from a new class of lipid-lowering drugs, showed a “remarkable” and unprecedented level of LDL-cholesterol lowering in a pivotal trial with 65 patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia.

Monthly intravenous infusions of evinacumab cut LDL cholesterol levels by an average of 135 mg/dL from baseline, a 47% mean reduction, after 24 weeks of treatment in 43 homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) patients, Frederick Raal, MBChB, said on March 30 in a video presentation of his research at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

Evinacumab is a human monoclonal antibody inhibitor of angiopoietin-like 3, a liver protein that boosts levels of LDL cholesterol and triglycerides (TG).

Another notable effect of the novel agent was that it was equally effective in the roughly one-third of patients with a minimal residual level of LDL receptor activity, patients know as having “null/null” mutations. “For the first time, we see HoFH patients getting to [lipid] targets that we never thought would be possible,” said Dr. Raal, professor and head of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. “This works in patients without residual LDL receptor function.” The drug was also generally very well tolerated, he said, causing no treatment-related serious adverse events during the brief treatment period of 24 weeks.

“One of the major, remarkable findings in this study was the effect on null/null patients,” which contrasts with the effects of other, more established drugs for treating dyslipidemia like statins and PCSK9 inhibitors, which work by increasing the number of LDL receptors on cells. The demonstrated efficacy and safety of evinacumab in null/null patients “is a definite advance,” commented Anne C. Goldberg, MD, a lipidologist and professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

The placebo-controlled trial randomized patients at 30 sites in 11 countries who were at least 12 years old and had documented mutations in both of their LDL receptor genes and a serum level of LDL cholesterol that was at least 500 mg/dL on no treatment. Patients averaged about 40 years of age; about 30% had null/null mutations, more than 90% were on statin treatment, and about three-quarters were receiving regular treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor. At baseline, LDL cholesterol levels averaged about 250 mg/dL.

The study’s primary endpoint was the between-group percentage change in LDL cholesterol level after 24 weeks, which fell by 47% from baseline with evinacumab treatment and increased by an average of 2% among 22 patients who received placebo injections; so evinacumab cut this measure by 49%, compared with placebo after 24 weeks, a statistically significant difference. A cut of baseline LDL cholesterol by at least 50% occurred in 56% of the evinacumab-treated patients and in 5% of controls.

In addition to its LDL reduction, another notable effect of evinacumab was that it trimmed baseline triglyceride levels by half, consistent with prior reports of the drug’s effect on this measure, although average triglyceride levels in the enrolled patients fell within the normal range prior to treatment.

Evinacumab “will probably be very effective in treating patients with hypertriglyceridemia; those studies are ongoing,” noted Dr. Raal. But, he added, “this drug will probably be reserved for severe” dyslipidemia cases, not for “the garden variety of moderate hypertriglyceridemia or hypercholesterolemia.”

Evinacumab “may be a fairly broad-spectrum lipid-lowering drug, but it should be reserved for severe cases,” agreed Dirk Blom, MBChB, head of lipidology at the University of Capetown, South Africa. “This will likely remain a fairly expensive drug, and we wouldn’t want to use it across the board, but for difficult to treat patients with either severe hypercholesterolemia or hypertriglyceridemia, I think this will have very significant advantages,” he commented.

“Drugs that reduce triglycerides by large amounts may prove to have cardiovascular disease benefits, but that remains to be proven in large, long-term outcome trials,” commented Deepak Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “But for right now, for most patients with more common forms of elevated LDL cholesterol, the treatment options include statins, ezetimibe [Zetia], and PCSK9 inhibitors, and for more common levels of elevated triglycerides, it’s icosapent ethyl [Vascepa],” Dr. Bhatt said.

The study was sponsored by Regeneron, the company developing evinacumab and which is partially owned by Sanofi. Dr. Raal has received personal fees and/or research funding from Regeneron, Sanofi Aventis, Amgen, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Goldberg has received research funding and/or consulting fees from Regeneron and Sanofi, Akcea, Amarin, Amgen, Esperion, Ionis, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Blom has been a consultant to and/or received research funding from Regeneron, Sanofi, Aegerium, Akcea, Amgen, Amryt, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Gemphire, MSD, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from many companies including Regeneron and Sanofi.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Raal F. ACC 20. Abstract 411-12.

Evinacumab, the first agent from a new class of lipid-lowering drugs, showed a “remarkable” and unprecedented level of LDL-cholesterol lowering in a pivotal trial with 65 patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia.

Monthly intravenous infusions of evinacumab cut LDL cholesterol levels by an average of 135 mg/dL from baseline, a 47% mean reduction, after 24 weeks of treatment in 43 homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) patients, Frederick Raal, MBChB, said on March 30 in a video presentation of his research at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

Evinacumab is a human monoclonal antibody inhibitor of angiopoietin-like 3, a liver protein that boosts levels of LDL cholesterol and triglycerides (TG).

Another notable effect of the novel agent was that it was equally effective in the roughly one-third of patients with a minimal residual level of LDL receptor activity, patients know as having “null/null” mutations. “For the first time, we see HoFH patients getting to [lipid] targets that we never thought would be possible,” said Dr. Raal, professor and head of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. “This works in patients without residual LDL receptor function.” The drug was also generally very well tolerated, he said, causing no treatment-related serious adverse events during the brief treatment period of 24 weeks.

“One of the major, remarkable findings in this study was the effect on null/null patients,” which contrasts with the effects of other, more established drugs for treating dyslipidemia like statins and PCSK9 inhibitors, which work by increasing the number of LDL receptors on cells. The demonstrated efficacy and safety of evinacumab in null/null patients “is a definite advance,” commented Anne C. Goldberg, MD, a lipidologist and professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

The placebo-controlled trial randomized patients at 30 sites in 11 countries who were at least 12 years old and had documented mutations in both of their LDL receptor genes and a serum level of LDL cholesterol that was at least 500 mg/dL on no treatment. Patients averaged about 40 years of age; about 30% had null/null mutations, more than 90% were on statin treatment, and about three-quarters were receiving regular treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor. At baseline, LDL cholesterol levels averaged about 250 mg/dL.

The study’s primary endpoint was the between-group percentage change in LDL cholesterol level after 24 weeks, which fell by 47% from baseline with evinacumab treatment and increased by an average of 2% among 22 patients who received placebo injections; so evinacumab cut this measure by 49%, compared with placebo after 24 weeks, a statistically significant difference. A cut of baseline LDL cholesterol by at least 50% occurred in 56% of the evinacumab-treated patients and in 5% of controls.

In addition to its LDL reduction, another notable effect of evinacumab was that it trimmed baseline triglyceride levels by half, consistent with prior reports of the drug’s effect on this measure, although average triglyceride levels in the enrolled patients fell within the normal range prior to treatment.

Evinacumab “will probably be very effective in treating patients with hypertriglyceridemia; those studies are ongoing,” noted Dr. Raal. But, he added, “this drug will probably be reserved for severe” dyslipidemia cases, not for “the garden variety of moderate hypertriglyceridemia or hypercholesterolemia.”

Evinacumab “may be a fairly broad-spectrum lipid-lowering drug, but it should be reserved for severe cases,” agreed Dirk Blom, MBChB, head of lipidology at the University of Capetown, South Africa. “This will likely remain a fairly expensive drug, and we wouldn’t want to use it across the board, but for difficult to treat patients with either severe hypercholesterolemia or hypertriglyceridemia, I think this will have very significant advantages,” he commented.

“Drugs that reduce triglycerides by large amounts may prove to have cardiovascular disease benefits, but that remains to be proven in large, long-term outcome trials,” commented Deepak Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “But for right now, for most patients with more common forms of elevated LDL cholesterol, the treatment options include statins, ezetimibe [Zetia], and PCSK9 inhibitors, and for more common levels of elevated triglycerides, it’s icosapent ethyl [Vascepa],” Dr. Bhatt said.

The study was sponsored by Regeneron, the company developing evinacumab and which is partially owned by Sanofi. Dr. Raal has received personal fees and/or research funding from Regeneron, Sanofi Aventis, Amgen, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Goldberg has received research funding and/or consulting fees from Regeneron and Sanofi, Akcea, Amarin, Amgen, Esperion, Ionis, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Blom has been a consultant to and/or received research funding from Regeneron, Sanofi, Aegerium, Akcea, Amgen, Amryt, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Gemphire, MSD, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from many companies including Regeneron and Sanofi.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Raal F. ACC 20. Abstract 411-12.

Alirocumab achieved a mean 63-mg/dL reduction in LDL cholesterol in the ODYSSEY HoFH study, the largest-ever randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of lipid-lowering in adults with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), Dirk Blom, MD, said in a video presentation of his research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Alirocumab achieved a mean 63-mg/dL reduction in LDL cholesterol in the ODYSSEY HoFH study, the largest-ever randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of lipid-lowering in adults with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), Dirk Blom, MD, said in a video presentation of his research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Alirocumab achieved a mean 63-mg/dL reduction in LDL cholesterol in the ODYSSEY HoFH study, the largest-ever randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of lipid-lowering in adults with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), Dirk Blom, MD, said in a video presentation of his research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

bjancin@mdedge.com