Cardiology

NEW ORLEANS – Hypertensive elderly patients treated to maintain an ambulatory systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg had significantly slower progression of white matter lesions in their brains than did control hypertensive patients maintained at an ambulatory systolic pressure of about 145 mm Hg during 3 years of follow-up in a randomized, single-center study with 199 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The results also showed similar rates of death, syncope episodes, and falls in the intensively and less rigorously treated subgroups, and the patients treated to a systolic of 130 mm Hg also had significantly fewer nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, further documenting the safety and efficacy in elderly patients of a more aggressive blood pressure goal like the one promoted in current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association, William B. White, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

The study’s findings also showed that in one measure of cognitive function, the serial reaction time task, the patients treated to a systolic pressure of 130 mm Hg had an average 23 millisecond improvement in their reaction time from baseline to their 3-year follow-up, while patients in the control group treated to a systolic pressure of 145 mm Hg had a 33 millisecond increase in their average reaction time during follow-up. This 56 millisecond between-group difference from baseline in average change in reaction time over 3 years was both statistically significant and represents a clinically meaningful difference for a measure of both processing speed and executive function, said Dr. White, professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut in Farmington. However, the participants also underwent assessment by five other clinical measures of cognitive function and in none of the other five tests did more intensive blood pressure control link with an improvement, compared with the results in control patients.

The study had two primary endpoints. One was progression of white matter hyperintensity on brain MR images, which is a measure of neuron necrosis in the brain, and this analysis showed that the growth of white matter occurred at a 40% reduced rate among 99 patients treated to an average ambulatory systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg, compared with the average progression among 100 controls treated to an average ambulatory systolic of 145 mm Hg. The second measure was improvement during 3 years, compared with controls, in any of six different measures of mobility, including gait speed. The results showed no significant differences between the treatment arms in any of these measures. The average progression of white matter disease among control patients after 3 years was of a magnitude that would trigger concern in a neurologist who saw these scans, said Dr. White. The researchers could already begin to see a between-group difference in the accumulation of white matter hyperintensity on the MR scans of patients at 18 months in the study, he added.

During his presentation, Dr. White suggested that the absence of discerned improvements in mobility from more aggressive blood pressure control despite the observed slowed progression of white matter disease may have resulted from the study’s relatively brief follow-up.


The INFINITY (Intensive versus Standard Ambulatory Blood Pressure Lowering to Prevent Functional Decline in the Elderly) study enrolled hypertensive patients at least 75 years old who already showed visible evidence of white matter hypertrophy on their brain MR scan at baseline but also had normal mobility and mental function (their baseline score on the mini mental state examination had to be within the normal range, with an average score of 28 among enrolled patients), and they had no history of any chronic neurological condition (Am Heart J. 2013 Mar;165[3]:258-65). The median age of enrolled patients was 80 years. They had an average of 15 years of education, indicating a study cohort with a high level of education and function, Dr. White noted. The inclusion and exclusion criteria led to a study population that was substantially older but without as much comorbidity as patients enrolled in the SPRINT MIND study (JAMA. 2019 Jan 28;321[6]:553-61), he said. The study exclusively used 24-hour ambulatory monitoring for baseline and follow-up blood pressure measurements.

The participating clinicians successfully maintained patients in each of the treatment groups at close to their goal systolic blood pressures. At 18 months, the actual average systolic pressures among patients in the two study groups were 132 mm Hg and 146 mm Hg, and at 36 months their pressures averaged 131 mm Hg and 146 mm Hg for 163 patients who remained in the study out to 36-months. Maintenance of the lower pressure generally required treatment with one additional antihypertensive medication, compared with the control patients’ treatment, Dr. White said.

The rates of total falls and falls causing injury were virtually identical in the two treatment groups. The incidence of nonfatal cardiovascular disease events over 3 years, including MI, strokes, and cardiovascular disease hospitalizations, was 4 cases in the intensively-treated patients and 17 among those treated to a higher systolic pressure, a statistically significant and unexpected difference, Dr. White reported.

mzoler@mdedge.com

NEW ORLEANS – Hypertensive elderly patients treated to maintain an ambulatory systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg had significantly slower progression of white matter lesions in their brains than did control hypertensive patients maintained at an ambulatory systolic pressure of about 145 mm Hg during 3 years of follow-up in a randomized, single-center study with 199 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The results also showed similar rates of death, syncope episodes, and falls in the intensively and less rigorously treated subgroups, and the patients treated to a systolic of 130 mm Hg also had significantly fewer nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, further documenting the safety and efficacy in elderly patients of a more aggressive blood pressure goal like the one promoted in current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association, William B. White, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

The study’s findings also showed that in one measure of cognitive function, the serial reaction time task, the patients treated to a systolic pressure of 130 mm Hg had an average 23 millisecond improvement in their reaction time from baseline to their 3-year follow-up, while patients in the control group treated to a systolic pressure of 145 mm Hg had a 33 millisecond increase in their average reaction time during follow-up. This 56 millisecond between-group difference from baseline in average change in reaction time over 3 years was both statistically significant and represents a clinically meaningful difference for a measure of both processing speed and executive function, said Dr. White, professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut in Farmington. However, the participants also underwent assessment by five other clinical measures of cognitive function and in none of the other five tests did more intensive blood pressure control link with an improvement, compared with the results in control patients.

The study had two primary endpoints. One was progression of white matter hyperintensity on brain MR images, which is a measure of neuron necrosis in the brain, and this analysis showed that the growth of white matter occurred at a 40% reduced rate among 99 patients treated to an average ambulatory systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg, compared with the average progression among 100 controls treated to an average ambulatory systolic of 145 mm Hg. The second measure was improvement during 3 years, compared with controls, in any of six different measures of mobility, including gait speed. The results showed no significant differences between the treatment arms in any of these measures. The average progression of white matter disease among control patients after 3 years was of a magnitude that would trigger concern in a neurologist who saw these scans, said Dr. White. The researchers could already begin to see a between-group difference in the accumulation of white matter hyperintensity on the MR scans of patients at 18 months in the study, he added.

During his presentation, Dr. White suggested that the absence of discerned improvements in mobility from more aggressive blood pressure control despite the observed slowed progression of white matter disease may have resulted from the study’s relatively brief follow-up.


The INFINITY (Intensive versus Standard Ambulatory Blood Pressure Lowering to Prevent Functional Decline in the Elderly) study enrolled hypertensive patients at least 75 years old who already showed visible evidence of white matter hypertrophy on their brain MR scan at baseline but also had normal mobility and mental function (their baseline score on the mini mental state examination had to be within the normal range, with an average score of 28 among enrolled patients), and they had no history of any chronic neurological condition (Am Heart J. 2013 Mar;165[3]:258-65). The median age of enrolled patients was 80 years. They had an average of 15 years of education, indicating a study cohort with a high level of education and function, Dr. White noted. The inclusion and exclusion criteria led to a study population that was substantially older but without as much comorbidity as patients enrolled in the SPRINT MIND study (JAMA. 2019 Jan 28;321[6]:553-61), he said. The study exclusively used 24-hour ambulatory monitoring for baseline and follow-up blood pressure measurements.

The participating clinicians successfully maintained patients in each of the treatment groups at close to their goal systolic blood pressures. At 18 months, the actual average systolic pressures among patients in the two study groups were 132 mm Hg and 146 mm Hg, and at 36 months their pressures averaged 131 mm Hg and 146 mm Hg for 163 patients who remained in the study out to 36-months. Maintenance of the lower pressure generally required treatment with one additional antihypertensive medication, compared with the control patients’ treatment, Dr. White said.

The rates of total falls and falls causing injury were virtually identical in the two treatment groups. The incidence of nonfatal cardiovascular disease events over 3 years, including MI, strokes, and cardiovascular disease hospitalizations, was 4 cases in the intensively-treated patients and 17 among those treated to a higher systolic pressure, a statistically significant and unexpected difference, Dr. White reported.

mzoler@mdedge.com

NEW ORLEANS – Hypertensive elderly patients treated to maintain an ambulatory systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg had significantly slower progression of white matter lesions in their brains than did control hypertensive patients maintained at an ambulatory systolic pressure of about 145 mm Hg during 3 years of follow-up in a randomized, single-center study with 199 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The results also showed similar rates of death, syncope episodes, and falls in the intensively and less rigorously treated subgroups, and the patients treated to a systolic of 130 mm Hg also had significantly fewer nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, further documenting the safety and efficacy in elderly patients of a more aggressive blood pressure goal like the one promoted in current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association, William B. White, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

The study’s findings also showed that in one measure of cognitive function, the serial reaction time task, the patients treated to a systolic pressure of 130 mm Hg had an average 23 millisecond improvement in their reaction time from baseline to their 3-year follow-up, while patients in the control group treated to a systolic pressure of 145 mm Hg had a 33 millisecond increase in their average reaction time during follow-up. This 56 millisecond between-group difference from baseline in average change in reaction time over 3 years was both statistically significant and represents a clinically meaningful difference for a measure of both processing speed and executive function, said Dr. White, professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut in Farmington. However, the participants also underwent assessment by five other clinical measures of cognitive function and in none of the other five tests did more intensive blood pressure control link with an improvement, compared with the results in control patients.

The study had two primary endpoints. One was progression of white matter hyperintensity on brain MR images, which is a measure of neuron necrosis in the brain, and this analysis showed that the growth of white matter occurred at a 40% reduced rate among 99 patients treated to an average ambulatory systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg, compared with the average progression among 100 controls treated to an average ambulatory systolic of 145 mm Hg. The second measure was improvement during 3 years, compared with controls, in any of six different measures of mobility, including gait speed. The results showed no significant differences between the treatment arms in any of these measures. The average progression of white matter disease among control patients after 3 years was of a magnitude that would trigger concern in a neurologist who saw these scans, said Dr. White. The researchers could already begin to see a between-group difference in the accumulation of white matter hyperintensity on the MR scans of patients at 18 months in the study, he added.

During his presentation, Dr. White suggested that the absence of discerned improvements in mobility from more aggressive blood pressure control despite the observed slowed progression of white matter disease may have resulted from the study’s relatively brief follow-up.


The INFINITY (Intensive versus Standard Ambulatory Blood Pressure Lowering to Prevent Functional Decline in the Elderly) study enrolled hypertensive patients at least 75 years old who already showed visible evidence of white matter hypertrophy on their brain MR scan at baseline but also had normal mobility and mental function (their baseline score on the mini mental state examination had to be within the normal range, with an average score of 28 among enrolled patients), and they had no history of any chronic neurological condition (Am Heart J. 2013 Mar;165[3]:258-65). The median age of enrolled patients was 80 years. They had an average of 15 years of education, indicating a study cohort with a high level of education and function, Dr. White noted. The inclusion and exclusion criteria led to a study population that was substantially older but without as much comorbidity as patients enrolled in the SPRINT MIND study (JAMA. 2019 Jan 28;321[6]:553-61), he said. The study exclusively used 24-hour ambulatory monitoring for baseline and follow-up blood pressure measurements.

The participating clinicians successfully maintained patients in each of the treatment groups at close to their goal systolic blood pressures. At 18 months, the actual average systolic pressures among patients in the two study groups were 132 mm Hg and 146 mm Hg, and at 36 months their pressures averaged 131 mm Hg and 146 mm Hg for 163 patients who remained in the study out to 36-months. Maintenance of the lower pressure generally required treatment with one additional antihypertensive medication, compared with the control patients’ treatment, Dr. White said.

The rates of total falls and falls causing injury were virtually identical in the two treatment groups. The incidence of nonfatal cardiovascular disease events over 3 years, including MI, strokes, and cardiovascular disease hospitalizations, was 4 cases in the intensively-treated patients and 17 among those treated to a higher systolic pressure, a statistically significant and unexpected difference, Dr. White reported.

mzoler@mdedge.com

NEW ORLEANS – Abstinence from alcohol on the part of moderate drinkers with atrial fibrillation resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in their arrhythmia in the randomized controlled Alcohol-AF trial, Aleksandr Voskoboinik, MBBS, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The benefits of abstinence included significant reductions in the AFib recurrence rate, total AFib burden, and symptom severity. And the payoff extended beyond the arrhythmia: The abstinent group also averaged a 12–mm Hg drop in systolic blood pressure and dropped 3 kg of body weight over the course of the 6-month trial, added Dr. Voskoboinik, a cardiologist at the Baker Heart & Diabetes Institute at the University of Melbourne.

“We would conclude that significant reduction in alcohol intake should be considered as part of the lifestyle intervention in moderate drinkers with AFib,” he said.

Some physicians already advise alcohol abstinence for moderate drinkers with AFib, but until now such recommendations were not evidence based. Instead, the guidance was based on extrapolation from the well-established harmful effects of heavy drinking and binge drinking on AFib as well as epidemiologic studies.

“We wanted to provide some evidence base for physicians to say, ‘If I have motivated patients, here’s what’s potentially achievable,’” he explained.

The key word here is “motivated.” Conducting the Alcohol-AF trial made clear that many moderate drinkers with AFib enjoy their beverages more than they hate having their arrhythmia. Indeed, out of 697 moderate-drinking patients with paroxysmal or persistent AFib who were deemed good candidates and were approached about study participation, more than 500 were excluded because they were flat out unwilling to consider abstinence. After Dr. Voskoboinik and his coinvestigators shortened the planned trial duration from 12 months to 6 because so many recruits were unwilling to abstain for a full year, 140 of the initial 697 patients were randomized to abstinence or continuation of their usual consumption. Thirty percent of them had previously undergone AFib ablation.

Symptom severity, a secondary endpoint, showed an impressive between-group difference at follow-up. Ten percent of patients in the abstinence group had moderate or severe symptoms at follow-up as assessed via the European Heart Rhythm Association score of atrial fibrillation, compared to 32% of controls, for an absolute 22% difference. And 90% of the abstinence group had no or mild symptoms, as did 68% of controls. Nine percent of the abstinence group had an AFib-related hospitalization, as did 20% of controls.

Cardiac MRI, performed in all subjects, showed that the abstinence group experienced a significant reduction in left atrial area, from 29.5 cm² at baseline to 27.1 cm² at follow-up. They also experienced significant improvement in left atrial mechanical function, with their left atrial emptying fraction climbing from 42% to 50%.

The 3-kg weight loss from a baseline of 90 kg in the abstinent group represented a 0.7 kg/m² reduction in body mass index.

In terms of the likely mechanism of benefit of alcohol abstinence in moderate drinkers, Dr. Voskoboinik noted that he and his colleagues recently demonstrated that regular moderate alcohol consumption, but not mild intake, is associated with potentially explanatory atrial electrical and structural changes, including conduction slowing, lower global bipolar atrial voltage, and an increase in complex atrial potentials (Heart Rhythm. 2019 Feb;16[2]:251-9).

Alcohol has been shown to be linked with AFib through multiple mechanisms. Alcohol has adverse effects on the atrial substrate, including promotion of left atrial remodeling, dilation, and fibrosis via oxidative stress, and alcohol has a contributory role in hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea. Alcohol can act as an acute trigger of AFib through binge drinking – the holiday heart syndrome – which causes autonomic changes, electrolyte abnormalities, and electrophysiologic effects, he continued.

Epidemiologic evidence in support of the notion that moderate drinking increases the risk of AFib includes a Swedish meta-analysis of seven prospective studies comprising 12,554 patients with AFib. The researchers concluded that the relative risk of AFib rose by about 8% with each drink per day, compared with the risk of a reference group composed of current drinkers at a rate of less than one drink per week (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jul 22;64[3]:281-9).

Although discussants were wowed by the 61% complete abstinence rate in the trial, Dr. Voskoboinik cautioned that the study participants were a highly motivated subset of the universe of moderate drinkers with AFib. And even so, “It was an incredibly challenging study to run,” he said.

“I think lifestyle change is a challenge, and with alcohol particularly so, because alcohol is so ubiquitous in our society. I think the important key message for us as physicians is to take an alcohol history and have a discussion with the patient. And we now have some data to show them. But at the end of the day, it’s up to the patient in conjunction with the physician,” he observed.

Discussant Annabelle S. Volgman, MD, noted that 85% of study participants were men, and because of important differences in AFib between men and women, she doesn’t consider the findings applicable to women.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“You need to redo the study in women,” advised Dr. Volgman, professor of medicine at Rush University, Chicago, and director of the Rush Heart Center for Women.

She suggested that an interventional trial such as this one is a great opportunity to utilize wearable device technology, such as the Apple Watch, which can detect irregular pulse rhythms as demonstrated in the Apple Heart Study. This technology is especially popular with younger individuals.

“A lot of young men and women drink a lot of alcohol,” Dr. Volgman noted.

“That’s a great idea. It gets around a problem with AliveCor, which can miss episodes while you’re sleeping,” Dr. Voskoboinik replied.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the investigator-initiated and -funded Alcohol-AF trial.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Voskoboinik A. ACC 19, Session 413-08.

NEW ORLEANS – Abstinence from alcohol on the part of moderate drinkers with atrial fibrillation resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in their arrhythmia in the randomized controlled Alcohol-AF trial, Aleksandr Voskoboinik, MBBS, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The benefits of abstinence included significant reductions in the AFib recurrence rate, total AFib burden, and symptom severity. And the payoff extended beyond the arrhythmia: The abstinent group also averaged a 12–mm Hg drop in systolic blood pressure and dropped 3 kg of body weight over the course of the 6-month trial, added Dr. Voskoboinik, a cardiologist at the Baker Heart & Diabetes Institute at the University of Melbourne.

“We would conclude that significant reduction in alcohol intake should be considered as part of the lifestyle intervention in moderate drinkers with AFib,” he said.

Some physicians already advise alcohol abstinence for moderate drinkers with AFib, but until now such recommendations were not evidence based. Instead, the guidance was based on extrapolation from the well-established harmful effects of heavy drinking and binge drinking on AFib as well as epidemiologic studies.

“We wanted to provide some evidence base for physicians to say, ‘If I have motivated patients, here’s what’s potentially achievable,’” he explained.

The key word here is “motivated.” Conducting the Alcohol-AF trial made clear that many moderate drinkers with AFib enjoy their beverages more than they hate having their arrhythmia. Indeed, out of 697 moderate-drinking patients with paroxysmal or persistent AFib who were deemed good candidates and were approached about study participation, more than 500 were excluded because they were flat out unwilling to consider abstinence. After Dr. Voskoboinik and his coinvestigators shortened the planned trial duration from 12 months to 6 because so many recruits were unwilling to abstain for a full year, 140 of the initial 697 patients were randomized to abstinence or continuation of their usual consumption. Thirty percent of them had previously undergone AFib ablation.

Symptom severity, a secondary endpoint, showed an impressive between-group difference at follow-up. Ten percent of patients in the abstinence group had moderate or severe symptoms at follow-up as assessed via the European Heart Rhythm Association score of atrial fibrillation, compared to 32% of controls, for an absolute 22% difference. And 90% of the abstinence group had no or mild symptoms, as did 68% of controls. Nine percent of the abstinence group had an AFib-related hospitalization, as did 20% of controls.

Cardiac MRI, performed in all subjects, showed that the abstinence group experienced a significant reduction in left atrial area, from 29.5 cm² at baseline to 27.1 cm² at follow-up. They also experienced significant improvement in left atrial mechanical function, with their left atrial emptying fraction climbing from 42% to 50%.

The 3-kg weight loss from a baseline of 90 kg in the abstinent group represented a 0.7 kg/m² reduction in body mass index.

In terms of the likely mechanism of benefit of alcohol abstinence in moderate drinkers, Dr. Voskoboinik noted that he and his colleagues recently demonstrated that regular moderate alcohol consumption, but not mild intake, is associated with potentially explanatory atrial electrical and structural changes, including conduction slowing, lower global bipolar atrial voltage, and an increase in complex atrial potentials (Heart Rhythm. 2019 Feb;16[2]:251-9).

Alcohol has been shown to be linked with AFib through multiple mechanisms. Alcohol has adverse effects on the atrial substrate, including promotion of left atrial remodeling, dilation, and fibrosis via oxidative stress, and alcohol has a contributory role in hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea. Alcohol can act as an acute trigger of AFib through binge drinking – the holiday heart syndrome – which causes autonomic changes, electrolyte abnormalities, and electrophysiologic effects, he continued.

Epidemiologic evidence in support of the notion that moderate drinking increases the risk of AFib includes a Swedish meta-analysis of seven prospective studies comprising 12,554 patients with AFib. The researchers concluded that the relative risk of AFib rose by about 8% with each drink per day, compared with the risk of a reference group composed of current drinkers at a rate of less than one drink per week (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jul 22;64[3]:281-9).

Although discussants were wowed by the 61% complete abstinence rate in the trial, Dr. Voskoboinik cautioned that the study participants were a highly motivated subset of the universe of moderate drinkers with AFib. And even so, “It was an incredibly challenging study to run,” he said.

“I think lifestyle change is a challenge, and with alcohol particularly so, because alcohol is so ubiquitous in our society. I think the important key message for us as physicians is to take an alcohol history and have a discussion with the patient. And we now have some data to show them. But at the end of the day, it’s up to the patient in conjunction with the physician,” he observed.

Discussant Annabelle S. Volgman, MD, noted that 85% of study participants were men, and because of important differences in AFib between men and women, she doesn’t consider the findings applicable to women.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“You need to redo the study in women,” advised Dr. Volgman, professor of medicine at Rush University, Chicago, and director of the Rush Heart Center for Women.

She suggested that an interventional trial such as this one is a great opportunity to utilize wearable device technology, such as the Apple Watch, which can detect irregular pulse rhythms as demonstrated in the Apple Heart Study. This technology is especially popular with younger individuals.

“A lot of young men and women drink a lot of alcohol,” Dr. Volgman noted.

“That’s a great idea. It gets around a problem with AliveCor, which can miss episodes while you’re sleeping,” Dr. Voskoboinik replied.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the investigator-initiated and -funded Alcohol-AF trial.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Voskoboinik A. ACC 19, Session 413-08.

NEW ORLEANS – Abstinence from alcohol on the part of moderate drinkers with atrial fibrillation resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in their arrhythmia in the randomized controlled Alcohol-AF trial, Aleksandr Voskoboinik, MBBS, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The benefits of abstinence included significant reductions in the AFib recurrence rate, total AFib burden, and symptom severity. And the payoff extended beyond the arrhythmia: The abstinent group also averaged a 12–mm Hg drop in systolic blood pressure and dropped 3 kg of body weight over the course of the 6-month trial, added Dr. Voskoboinik, a cardiologist at the Baker Heart & Diabetes Institute at the University of Melbourne.

“We would conclude that significant reduction in alcohol intake should be considered as part of the lifestyle intervention in moderate drinkers with AFib,” he said.

Some physicians already advise alcohol abstinence for moderate drinkers with AFib, but until now such recommendations were not evidence based. Instead, the guidance was based on extrapolation from the well-established harmful effects of heavy drinking and binge drinking on AFib as well as epidemiologic studies.

“We wanted to provide some evidence base for physicians to say, ‘If I have motivated patients, here’s what’s potentially achievable,’” he explained.

The key word here is “motivated.” Conducting the Alcohol-AF trial made clear that many moderate drinkers with AFib enjoy their beverages more than they hate having their arrhythmia. Indeed, out of 697 moderate-drinking patients with paroxysmal or persistent AFib who were deemed good candidates and were approached about study participation, more than 500 were excluded because they were flat out unwilling to consider abstinence. After Dr. Voskoboinik and his coinvestigators shortened the planned trial duration from 12 months to 6 because so many recruits were unwilling to abstain for a full year, 140 of the initial 697 patients were randomized to abstinence or continuation of their usual consumption. Thirty percent of them had previously undergone AFib ablation.

Symptom severity, a secondary endpoint, showed an impressive between-group difference at follow-up. Ten percent of patients in the abstinence group had moderate or severe symptoms at follow-up as assessed via the European Heart Rhythm Association score of atrial fibrillation, compared to 32% of controls, for an absolute 22% difference. And 90% of the abstinence group had no or mild symptoms, as did 68% of controls. Nine percent of the abstinence group had an AFib-related hospitalization, as did 20% of controls.

Cardiac MRI, performed in all subjects, showed that the abstinence group experienced a significant reduction in left atrial area, from 29.5 cm² at baseline to 27.1 cm² at follow-up. They also experienced significant improvement in left atrial mechanical function, with their left atrial emptying fraction climbing from 42% to 50%.

The 3-kg weight loss from a baseline of 90 kg in the abstinent group represented a 0.7 kg/m² reduction in body mass index.

In terms of the likely mechanism of benefit of alcohol abstinence in moderate drinkers, Dr. Voskoboinik noted that he and his colleagues recently demonstrated that regular moderate alcohol consumption, but not mild intake, is associated with potentially explanatory atrial electrical and structural changes, including conduction slowing, lower global bipolar atrial voltage, and an increase in complex atrial potentials (Heart Rhythm. 2019 Feb;16[2]:251-9).

Alcohol has been shown to be linked with AFib through multiple mechanisms. Alcohol has adverse effects on the atrial substrate, including promotion of left atrial remodeling, dilation, and fibrosis via oxidative stress, and alcohol has a contributory role in hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea. Alcohol can act as an acute trigger of AFib through binge drinking – the holiday heart syndrome – which causes autonomic changes, electrolyte abnormalities, and electrophysiologic effects, he continued.

Epidemiologic evidence in support of the notion that moderate drinking increases the risk of AFib includes a Swedish meta-analysis of seven prospective studies comprising 12,554 patients with AFib. The researchers concluded that the relative risk of AFib rose by about 8% with each drink per day, compared with the risk of a reference group composed of current drinkers at a rate of less than one drink per week (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jul 22;64[3]:281-9).

Although discussants were wowed by the 61% complete abstinence rate in the trial, Dr. Voskoboinik cautioned that the study participants were a highly motivated subset of the universe of moderate drinkers with AFib. And even so, “It was an incredibly challenging study to run,” he said.

“I think lifestyle change is a challenge, and with alcohol particularly so, because alcohol is so ubiquitous in our society. I think the important key message for us as physicians is to take an alcohol history and have a discussion with the patient. And we now have some data to show them. But at the end of the day, it’s up to the patient in conjunction with the physician,” he observed.

Discussant Annabelle S. Volgman, MD, noted that 85% of study participants were men, and because of important differences in AFib between men and women, she doesn’t consider the findings applicable to women.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“You need to redo the study in women,” advised Dr. Volgman, professor of medicine at Rush University, Chicago, and director of the Rush Heart Center for Women.

She suggested that an interventional trial such as this one is a great opportunity to utilize wearable device technology, such as the Apple Watch, which can detect irregular pulse rhythms as demonstrated in the Apple Heart Study. This technology is especially popular with younger individuals.

“A lot of young men and women drink a lot of alcohol,” Dr. Volgman noted.

“That’s a great idea. It gets around a problem with AliveCor, which can miss episodes while you’re sleeping,” Dr. Voskoboinik replied.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the investigator-initiated and -funded Alcohol-AF trial.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Voskoboinik A. ACC 19, Session 413-08.

HONOLULU – Compared with standard treatment, intensive blood pressure reduction does not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke, according to research presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Combined with data from previous trials, these results support a target systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of less than 80 mm Hg for secondary stroke prevention, said Kazuo Kitagawa, MD, PhD.

Lowering blood pressure reduces the risk of recurrent stroke, but investigators have not identified the best target blood pressure for this indication. The Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes Trial (SPS3) examined the efficacy of intensive blood pressure treatment for secondary stroke prevention. The investigators randomized more than 3,000 patients with recent lacunar stroke to intensive or standard blood pressure treatment. Intensive treatment (a target systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg) conferred a nonsignificant reduction of the risk of recurrent stroke. A 2018 meta-analysis of SPS3 and two smaller randomized controlled trials also showed that intensive treatment did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke.
 

A new multicenter trial

Dr. Kitagawa, of Tokyo Women’s Medical University, and colleagues conducted a new trial to evaluate whether intensive blood pressure reduction significantly reduced the risk of recurrent stroke, compared with standard treatment (a systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg and a diastolic target of less than 90 mm Hg). Between 2010 and 2016, they enrolled patients with a history of stroke within the previous 3 years at 140 hospitals in Japan. Participants were randomized to standard blood pressure treatment or intensive blood pressure treatment (defined in this study as a systolic target of less than 120 mm Hg and a diastolic target of less than 80 mm Hg). The primary end point was recurrent stroke.

Both treatment regimens were based on stepwise multidrug rationing. Step 1 was an angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB), step 2 was the addition of diuretics, step 3 was the addition of calcium channel blockers, step 4 was an increase of the ARB, step 5 was increase of the calcium channel blocker, and step 6 was the addition of spironolactone.

This trial was stopped at the end of 2016 because of slow recruitment and funding cessation. Investigators randomized 1,280 patients out of a planned 2,000. Seventeen patients were excluded from analysis. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 67 years, and mean systolic blood pressure was 145 mm Hg. The qualifying event was ischemic stroke for 85% of patients and intracerebral hemorrhage for 15%. Mean follow-up duration was 3.9 years.
 

Intensive treatment reduced blood pressure

At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 132.0 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group and 123.7 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group. Mean diastolic blood pressure was 77.5 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group and 72.8 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group. The investigators observed a significant difference in blood pressure between the groups throughout the study period.

The annual rate of stroke recurrence was 2.26% in the standard-treatment group and 1.65% in the intensive-treatment group. Intensive treatment tended to reduce stroke recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.73), but the result was not statistically significant. “The nonsignificant finding might be due to early termination or the modest difference in blood pressure level [between groups],” said Dr. Kitagawa.

Subgroup analyses did not indicate any interaction between treatment group and age, sex, qualifying event, mean systolic blood pressure at baseline, or diabetes. The rate of ischemic stroke was similar between the two groups, but the rate of intracerebral hemorrhage was lower in the intensive treatment group than in the standard treatment group. The rate of serious adverse events was similar between treatment groups.

When Dr. Kitagawa and colleagues pooled their data with those examined in the 2018 meta-analysis, they found that intensive treatment significantly reduced the risk of recurrent stroke (hazard ratio, 0.68), compared with standard treatment.

This study was sponsored by Biomedis International.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kitagawa K et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB10.

HONOLULU – Compared with standard treatment, intensive blood pressure reduction does not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke, according to research presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Combined with data from previous trials, these results support a target systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of less than 80 mm Hg for secondary stroke prevention, said Kazuo Kitagawa, MD, PhD.

Lowering blood pressure reduces the risk of recurrent stroke, but investigators have not identified the best target blood pressure for this indication. The Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes Trial (SPS3) examined the efficacy of intensive blood pressure treatment for secondary stroke prevention. The investigators randomized more than 3,000 patients with recent lacunar stroke to intensive or standard blood pressure treatment. Intensive treatment (a target systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg) conferred a nonsignificant reduction of the risk of recurrent stroke. A 2018 meta-analysis of SPS3 and two smaller randomized controlled trials also showed that intensive treatment did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke.
 

A new multicenter trial

Dr. Kitagawa, of Tokyo Women’s Medical University, and colleagues conducted a new trial to evaluate whether intensive blood pressure reduction significantly reduced the risk of recurrent stroke, compared with standard treatment (a systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg and a diastolic target of less than 90 mm Hg). Between 2010 and 2016, they enrolled patients with a history of stroke within the previous 3 years at 140 hospitals in Japan. Participants were randomized to standard blood pressure treatment or intensive blood pressure treatment (defined in this study as a systolic target of less than 120 mm Hg and a diastolic target of less than 80 mm Hg). The primary end point was recurrent stroke.

Both treatment regimens were based on stepwise multidrug rationing. Step 1 was an angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB), step 2 was the addition of diuretics, step 3 was the addition of calcium channel blockers, step 4 was an increase of the ARB, step 5 was increase of the calcium channel blocker, and step 6 was the addition of spironolactone.

This trial was stopped at the end of 2016 because of slow recruitment and funding cessation. Investigators randomized 1,280 patients out of a planned 2,000. Seventeen patients were excluded from analysis. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 67 years, and mean systolic blood pressure was 145 mm Hg. The qualifying event was ischemic stroke for 85% of patients and intracerebral hemorrhage for 15%. Mean follow-up duration was 3.9 years.
 

Intensive treatment reduced blood pressure

At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 132.0 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group and 123.7 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group. Mean diastolic blood pressure was 77.5 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group and 72.8 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group. The investigators observed a significant difference in blood pressure between the groups throughout the study period.

The annual rate of stroke recurrence was 2.26% in the standard-treatment group and 1.65% in the intensive-treatment group. Intensive treatment tended to reduce stroke recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.73), but the result was not statistically significant. “The nonsignificant finding might be due to early termination or the modest difference in blood pressure level [between groups],” said Dr. Kitagawa.

Subgroup analyses did not indicate any interaction between treatment group and age, sex, qualifying event, mean systolic blood pressure at baseline, or diabetes. The rate of ischemic stroke was similar between the two groups, but the rate of intracerebral hemorrhage was lower in the intensive treatment group than in the standard treatment group. The rate of serious adverse events was similar between treatment groups.

When Dr. Kitagawa and colleagues pooled their data with those examined in the 2018 meta-analysis, they found that intensive treatment significantly reduced the risk of recurrent stroke (hazard ratio, 0.68), compared with standard treatment.

This study was sponsored by Biomedis International.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kitagawa K et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB10.

HONOLULU – Compared with standard treatment, intensive blood pressure reduction does not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke, according to research presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Combined with data from previous trials, these results support a target systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of less than 80 mm Hg for secondary stroke prevention, said Kazuo Kitagawa, MD, PhD.

Lowering blood pressure reduces the risk of recurrent stroke, but investigators have not identified the best target blood pressure for this indication. The Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes Trial (SPS3) examined the efficacy of intensive blood pressure treatment for secondary stroke prevention. The investigators randomized more than 3,000 patients with recent lacunar stroke to intensive or standard blood pressure treatment. Intensive treatment (a target systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg) conferred a nonsignificant reduction of the risk of recurrent stroke. A 2018 meta-analysis of SPS3 and two smaller randomized controlled trials also showed that intensive treatment did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke.
 

A new multicenter trial

Dr. Kitagawa, of Tokyo Women’s Medical University, and colleagues conducted a new trial to evaluate whether intensive blood pressure reduction significantly reduced the risk of recurrent stroke, compared with standard treatment (a systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg and a diastolic target of less than 90 mm Hg). Between 2010 and 2016, they enrolled patients with a history of stroke within the previous 3 years at 140 hospitals in Japan. Participants were randomized to standard blood pressure treatment or intensive blood pressure treatment (defined in this study as a systolic target of less than 120 mm Hg and a diastolic target of less than 80 mm Hg). The primary end point was recurrent stroke.

Both treatment regimens were based on stepwise multidrug rationing. Step 1 was an angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB), step 2 was the addition of diuretics, step 3 was the addition of calcium channel blockers, step 4 was an increase of the ARB, step 5 was increase of the calcium channel blocker, and step 6 was the addition of spironolactone.

This trial was stopped at the end of 2016 because of slow recruitment and funding cessation. Investigators randomized 1,280 patients out of a planned 2,000. Seventeen patients were excluded from analysis. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 67 years, and mean systolic blood pressure was 145 mm Hg. The qualifying event was ischemic stroke for 85% of patients and intracerebral hemorrhage for 15%. Mean follow-up duration was 3.9 years.
 

Intensive treatment reduced blood pressure

At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 132.0 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group and 123.7 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group. Mean diastolic blood pressure was 77.5 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group and 72.8 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group. The investigators observed a significant difference in blood pressure between the groups throughout the study period.

The annual rate of stroke recurrence was 2.26% in the standard-treatment group and 1.65% in the intensive-treatment group. Intensive treatment tended to reduce stroke recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.73), but the result was not statistically significant. “The nonsignificant finding might be due to early termination or the modest difference in blood pressure level [between groups],” said Dr. Kitagawa.

Subgroup analyses did not indicate any interaction between treatment group and age, sex, qualifying event, mean systolic blood pressure at baseline, or diabetes. The rate of ischemic stroke was similar between the two groups, but the rate of intracerebral hemorrhage was lower in the intensive treatment group than in the standard treatment group. The rate of serious adverse events was similar between treatment groups.

When Dr. Kitagawa and colleagues pooled their data with those examined in the 2018 meta-analysis, they found that intensive treatment significantly reduced the risk of recurrent stroke (hazard ratio, 0.68), compared with standard treatment.

This study was sponsored by Biomedis International.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kitagawa K et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB10.

Among Asian American subgroups, Asian Indian, Filipino, and Vietnamese populations showed significantly higher premature death rates from ischemic heart disease, compared with other Asian subgroups, based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics for the years 2003 to 2012.

Previous studies have described death rates from cardiovascular disease in Asian subgroups, but premature death in particular has not been well studied, wrote Latha Palaniappan, MD, of the division of primary care and population health at the Stanford (Calif.) University, and her colleagues.

To examine premature mortality from cardiovascular disease in Asian subgroups, the researchers used years of potential life lost (YPLL) to measure premature mortality. “[Years of potential life lost ] compares age at death with average life expectancy to estimate the average time an individual would have lived had he/she not died prematurely from a specific disease,” they explained.

The study population included 354,256 Asian American decedents aged 25 years or older. Of that total, 59,936 died of ischemic heart disease and 28,489 died of cerebrovascular disease.

Overall, Asian men lost 779 years/100,000 people in 2003 and 574 years/100,000 in 2012. However, in 2003, Asian Indian men in particular lost 1,216 years/100,000, more than other Asian male subgroups and non-Hispanic white men.

“Use of race-specific life expectancy revealed greater heterogeneity in YPLL across all Asian subgroups,” the researchers wrote. Similarly, Asian Indian women had the highest years of potential life lost throughout the study period, with a high of 818 years/100,000 people in 2003 and 477 years/100,00 in 2012, compared with 577/100,000 and 426/100,000, respectively, among non-Hispanic white women.

All Asian male subgroups also lost more years of life to cerebrovascular disease, compared with non-Hispanic white men, and women in each Asian subgroup had a higher years of potential life lost, compared with non-Hispanic white women. Filipino men had the highest YPLL values for the period, followed by Vietnamese men, and the patterns were similar for Filipino and Vietnamese women.

Possible explanations for the high rate of premature death from ischemic heart disease in Asian Indians include greater prevalence of risk factors at younger age (including elevated apolipoprotein B100/apolipoprotein A-1 ratios), type 2 diabetes, and cardiometabolic abnormalities in people of normal weight that might go unnoticed in a clinical exam, the researchers said. In the case of cerebrovascular disease, possible risk factors for high years of potential life lost in certain subgroups include hypertension in Filipino populations, limited health literacy about stroke in Vietnamese populations, and high rates of smoking in Vietnamese men.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small amount of data on mortality in Asian Americans from census reports, the researchers noted. However, the use of years of potential life lost as a measure of the impact of cardiovascular disease provided a useful model of the impact of cardiovascular disease on life expectancy and total disease burden of cerebrovascular disease on Asian ethnic subgroups, they said.

“Our study also provides evidence that evaluating the Asian population together as one group underestimates the burden of [cerebrovascular disease],” they noted.

The National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities Research Project and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute supported the study in part by grants to researchers. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Iyer DG et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Mar 20. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.010744.

Among Asian American subgroups, Asian Indian, Filipino, and Vietnamese populations showed significantly higher premature death rates from ischemic heart disease, compared with other Asian subgroups, based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics for the years 2003 to 2012.

Previous studies have described death rates from cardiovascular disease in Asian subgroups, but premature death in particular has not been well studied, wrote Latha Palaniappan, MD, of the division of primary care and population health at the Stanford (Calif.) University, and her colleagues.

To examine premature mortality from cardiovascular disease in Asian subgroups, the researchers used years of potential life lost (YPLL) to measure premature mortality. “[Years of potential life lost ] compares age at death with average life expectancy to estimate the average time an individual would have lived had he/she not died prematurely from a specific disease,” they explained.

The study population included 354,256 Asian American decedents aged 25 years or older. Of that total, 59,936 died of ischemic heart disease and 28,489 died of cerebrovascular disease.

Overall, Asian men lost 779 years/100,000 people in 2003 and 574 years/100,000 in 2012. However, in 2003, Asian Indian men in particular lost 1,216 years/100,000, more than other Asian male subgroups and non-Hispanic white men.

“Use of race-specific life expectancy revealed greater heterogeneity in YPLL across all Asian subgroups,” the researchers wrote. Similarly, Asian Indian women had the highest years of potential life lost throughout the study period, with a high of 818 years/100,000 people in 2003 and 477 years/100,00 in 2012, compared with 577/100,000 and 426/100,000, respectively, among non-Hispanic white women.

All Asian male subgroups also lost more years of life to cerebrovascular disease, compared with non-Hispanic white men, and women in each Asian subgroup had a higher years of potential life lost, compared with non-Hispanic white women. Filipino men had the highest YPLL values for the period, followed by Vietnamese men, and the patterns were similar for Filipino and Vietnamese women.

Possible explanations for the high rate of premature death from ischemic heart disease in Asian Indians include greater prevalence of risk factors at younger age (including elevated apolipoprotein B100/apolipoprotein A-1 ratios), type 2 diabetes, and cardiometabolic abnormalities in people of normal weight that might go unnoticed in a clinical exam, the researchers said. In the case of cerebrovascular disease, possible risk factors for high years of potential life lost in certain subgroups include hypertension in Filipino populations, limited health literacy about stroke in Vietnamese populations, and high rates of smoking in Vietnamese men.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small amount of data on mortality in Asian Americans from census reports, the researchers noted. However, the use of years of potential life lost as a measure of the impact of cardiovascular disease provided a useful model of the impact of cardiovascular disease on life expectancy and total disease burden of cerebrovascular disease on Asian ethnic subgroups, they said.

“Our study also provides evidence that evaluating the Asian population together as one group underestimates the burden of [cerebrovascular disease],” they noted.

The National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities Research Project and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute supported the study in part by grants to researchers. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Iyer DG et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Mar 20. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.010744.

Among Asian American subgroups, Asian Indian, Filipino, and Vietnamese populations showed significantly higher premature death rates from ischemic heart disease, compared with other Asian subgroups, based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics for the years 2003 to 2012.

Previous studies have described death rates from cardiovascular disease in Asian subgroups, but premature death in particular has not been well studied, wrote Latha Palaniappan, MD, of the division of primary care and population health at the Stanford (Calif.) University, and her colleagues.

To examine premature mortality from cardiovascular disease in Asian subgroups, the researchers used years of potential life lost (YPLL) to measure premature mortality. “[Years of potential life lost ] compares age at death with average life expectancy to estimate the average time an individual would have lived had he/she not died prematurely from a specific disease,” they explained.

The study population included 354,256 Asian American decedents aged 25 years or older. Of that total, 59,936 died of ischemic heart disease and 28,489 died of cerebrovascular disease.

Overall, Asian men lost 779 years/100,000 people in 2003 and 574 years/100,000 in 2012. However, in 2003, Asian Indian men in particular lost 1,216 years/100,000, more than other Asian male subgroups and non-Hispanic white men.

“Use of race-specific life expectancy revealed greater heterogeneity in YPLL across all Asian subgroups,” the researchers wrote. Similarly, Asian Indian women had the highest years of potential life lost throughout the study period, with a high of 818 years/100,000 people in 2003 and 477 years/100,00 in 2012, compared with 577/100,000 and 426/100,000, respectively, among non-Hispanic white women.

All Asian male subgroups also lost more years of life to cerebrovascular disease, compared with non-Hispanic white men, and women in each Asian subgroup had a higher years of potential life lost, compared with non-Hispanic white women. Filipino men had the highest YPLL values for the period, followed by Vietnamese men, and the patterns were similar for Filipino and Vietnamese women.

Possible explanations for the high rate of premature death from ischemic heart disease in Asian Indians include greater prevalence of risk factors at younger age (including elevated apolipoprotein B100/apolipoprotein A-1 ratios), type 2 diabetes, and cardiometabolic abnormalities in people of normal weight that might go unnoticed in a clinical exam, the researchers said. In the case of cerebrovascular disease, possible risk factors for high years of potential life lost in certain subgroups include hypertension in Filipino populations, limited health literacy about stroke in Vietnamese populations, and high rates of smoking in Vietnamese men.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small amount of data on mortality in Asian Americans from census reports, the researchers noted. However, the use of years of potential life lost as a measure of the impact of cardiovascular disease provided a useful model of the impact of cardiovascular disease on life expectancy and total disease burden of cerebrovascular disease on Asian ethnic subgroups, they said.

“Our study also provides evidence that evaluating the Asian population together as one group underestimates the burden of [cerebrovascular disease],” they noted.

The National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities Research Project and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute supported the study in part by grants to researchers. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Iyer DG et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Mar 20. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.010744.

NEW ORLEANS – For patients with atrial fibrillation and either a recent acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention, combined treatment for 6 months with the anticoagulant apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor antiplatelet drug, but without aspirin, was safer than and as effective as a regimen that either also included aspirin or that substituted a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, for the direct-acting oral anticoagulant, based on results from a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.

The apixaban plus P2Y12 inhibitor (typically, clopidogrel) combination “resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations without significant differences in ischemic events than regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or both,” Renato D. Lopes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. Concurrently, his report of the results also appeared in an online article.

This finding in the AUGUSTUS trial gives clinicians more guidance for the long-standing dilemma of how to best prevent arterial thrombus formation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). To prevent a stroke, these patients routinely receive treatment with an anticoagulant when they have an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Typically, they receive several months of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor to prevent a clot from forming in the stented or unstable region of a coronary artery.

These patients are not uncommon; this circumstance occurs for about 20% of all AFib patients, and poses the question of what is the safest and most effective way to treat them. Should they get triple therapy with an anticoagulant, aspirin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor, an option that could cause excess bleeding; or should one of the three drugs drop out with the potential for an increased rate of ischemic events? The AUGUSTUS findings suggest that one solution is treatment with a combination of the direct-acting oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) and the P2Y12 inhibitor clopidogrel (Plavix) but without aspirin.

For the majority of patients like the ones enrolled, “less is more.” By dropping aspirin from the treatment mix, patients did better, said Dr. Lopes, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Dr. Lopes and his associates designed AUGUSTUS (A Study of Apixaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation, Not Caused by a Heart Valve Problem, Who Are at Risk for Thrombosis [Blood Clots] Due to Having Had a Recent Coronary Event, Such as a Heart Attack or a Procedure to Open the Vessels of the Heart) as a two-by-two factorial study to address two different questions: During 6 months of treatment, how did apixaban compare with a vitamin K antagonist (usually warfarin) in these patients for safety and efficacy, and how did aspirin compare with placebo in this setting for the same endpoints?

The trial enrolled 4,614 patients at 492 sites in 33 countries. All patients in the study received a P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% treated with clopidogrel. The study had roughly as many patients as the combined total of patients enrolled in two smaller, prior studies that had looked at roughly the same questions in similar patients.

“The aspirin part is the more interesting, and probably more unique and important finding,” John H. Alexander, MD, a coinvestigator on the study, said in a video interview. Regardless of the anticoagulant used, patients who received aspirin had a 16% rate of major bleeds or clinically relevant non-major bleeds, compared with a 9% rate among those on placebo, a statistically significant result that underscored the bleeding risk posed by adding aspirin to an anticoagulant and a P2Y12 inhibitor.

The results also showed no statistically significant difference in any efficacy measure with or without aspirin, including the rate of death or hospitalization, or of any individual ischemic endpoint. However the results showed a signal of a small increase in the rates of each of three types of ischemic events – stent thrombosis, MI, and need for urgent revascularization, each of which showed a numerical increase when aspirin was dropped. But the increase was small.

Dr. Lopes calculated that, for example, to prevent one episode of stent thrombosis by treating with aspirin also would cause 15 major or clinically relevant non-major bleeds, which makes inclusion of aspirin something of a judgment call for each patient, said Dr. Alexander, a professor of medicine at Duke. An AFib patient with a high risk for thrombosis but a low risk for bleeding following PCI or an ACS event might be a reasonable patient to treat with aspirin along with apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor, he explained.

The rate of major or clinically relevant bleeds was 11% with apixaban and 15% with a vitamin K antagonist, a statistically significant difference. Patients treated with apixaban also had a significantly reduced rate of death or hospitalization, 24%, compared with 27% among those on the vitamin K antagonist, as well as a significantly lower rate of stroke.

Overall the lowest bleeding rate was in patients on apixaban but no aspirin, a 7% rate, while the highest rate was in patients on a vitamin K antagonist plus aspirin, a 19% rate.

Dr. Alexander said that it would be an overreach to extrapolate these findings to other direct-acting oral anticoagulants, compared with a vitamin K antagonist, but he believed that the findings the study generated about aspirin were probably relevant regardless of the anticoagulant used.
 

mzoler@mdedge.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

NEW ORLEANS – For patients with atrial fibrillation and either a recent acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention, combined treatment for 6 months with the anticoagulant apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor antiplatelet drug, but without aspirin, was safer than and as effective as a regimen that either also included aspirin or that substituted a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, for the direct-acting oral anticoagulant, based on results from a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.

The apixaban plus P2Y12 inhibitor (typically, clopidogrel) combination “resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations without significant differences in ischemic events than regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or both,” Renato D. Lopes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. Concurrently, his report of the results also appeared in an online article.

This finding in the AUGUSTUS trial gives clinicians more guidance for the long-standing dilemma of how to best prevent arterial thrombus formation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). To prevent a stroke, these patients routinely receive treatment with an anticoagulant when they have an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Typically, they receive several months of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor to prevent a clot from forming in the stented or unstable region of a coronary artery.

These patients are not uncommon; this circumstance occurs for about 20% of all AFib patients, and poses the question of what is the safest and most effective way to treat them. Should they get triple therapy with an anticoagulant, aspirin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor, an option that could cause excess bleeding; or should one of the three drugs drop out with the potential for an increased rate of ischemic events? The AUGUSTUS findings suggest that one solution is treatment with a combination of the direct-acting oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) and the P2Y12 inhibitor clopidogrel (Plavix) but without aspirin.

For the majority of patients like the ones enrolled, “less is more.” By dropping aspirin from the treatment mix, patients did better, said Dr. Lopes, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Dr. Lopes and his associates designed AUGUSTUS (A Study of Apixaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation, Not Caused by a Heart Valve Problem, Who Are at Risk for Thrombosis [Blood Clots] Due to Having Had a Recent Coronary Event, Such as a Heart Attack or a Procedure to Open the Vessels of the Heart) as a two-by-two factorial study to address two different questions: During 6 months of treatment, how did apixaban compare with a vitamin K antagonist (usually warfarin) in these patients for safety and efficacy, and how did aspirin compare with placebo in this setting for the same endpoints?

The trial enrolled 4,614 patients at 492 sites in 33 countries. All patients in the study received a P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% treated with clopidogrel. The study had roughly as many patients as the combined total of patients enrolled in two smaller, prior studies that had looked at roughly the same questions in similar patients.

“The aspirin part is the more interesting, and probably more unique and important finding,” John H. Alexander, MD, a coinvestigator on the study, said in a video interview. Regardless of the anticoagulant used, patients who received aspirin had a 16% rate of major bleeds or clinically relevant non-major bleeds, compared with a 9% rate among those on placebo, a statistically significant result that underscored the bleeding risk posed by adding aspirin to an anticoagulant and a P2Y12 inhibitor.

The results also showed no statistically significant difference in any efficacy measure with or without aspirin, including the rate of death or hospitalization, or of any individual ischemic endpoint. However the results showed a signal of a small increase in the rates of each of three types of ischemic events – stent thrombosis, MI, and need for urgent revascularization, each of which showed a numerical increase when aspirin was dropped. But the increase was small.

Dr. Lopes calculated that, for example, to prevent one episode of stent thrombosis by treating with aspirin also would cause 15 major or clinically relevant non-major bleeds, which makes inclusion of aspirin something of a judgment call for each patient, said Dr. Alexander, a professor of medicine at Duke. An AFib patient with a high risk for thrombosis but a low risk for bleeding following PCI or an ACS event might be a reasonable patient to treat with aspirin along with apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor, he explained.

The rate of major or clinically relevant bleeds was 11% with apixaban and 15% with a vitamin K antagonist, a statistically significant difference. Patients treated with apixaban also had a significantly reduced rate of death or hospitalization, 24%, compared with 27% among those on the vitamin K antagonist, as well as a significantly lower rate of stroke.

Overall the lowest bleeding rate was in patients on apixaban but no aspirin, a 7% rate, while the highest rate was in patients on a vitamin K antagonist plus aspirin, a 19% rate.

Dr. Alexander said that it would be an overreach to extrapolate these findings to other direct-acting oral anticoagulants, compared with a vitamin K antagonist, but he believed that the findings the study generated about aspirin were probably relevant regardless of the anticoagulant used.
 

mzoler@mdedge.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

NEW ORLEANS – For patients with atrial fibrillation and either a recent acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention, combined treatment for 6 months with the anticoagulant apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor antiplatelet drug, but without aspirin, was safer than and as effective as a regimen that either also included aspirin or that substituted a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, for the direct-acting oral anticoagulant, based on results from a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.

The apixaban plus P2Y12 inhibitor (typically, clopidogrel) combination “resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations without significant differences in ischemic events than regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or both,” Renato D. Lopes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. Concurrently, his report of the results also appeared in an online article.

This finding in the AUGUSTUS trial gives clinicians more guidance for the long-standing dilemma of how to best prevent arterial thrombus formation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). To prevent a stroke, these patients routinely receive treatment with an anticoagulant when they have an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Typically, they receive several months of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor to prevent a clot from forming in the stented or unstable region of a coronary artery.

These patients are not uncommon; this circumstance occurs for about 20% of all AFib patients, and poses the question of what is the safest and most effective way to treat them. Should they get triple therapy with an anticoagulant, aspirin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor, an option that could cause excess bleeding; or should one of the three drugs drop out with the potential for an increased rate of ischemic events? The AUGUSTUS findings suggest that one solution is treatment with a combination of the direct-acting oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) and the P2Y12 inhibitor clopidogrel (Plavix) but without aspirin.

For the majority of patients like the ones enrolled, “less is more.” By dropping aspirin from the treatment mix, patients did better, said Dr. Lopes, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Dr. Lopes and his associates designed AUGUSTUS (A Study of Apixaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation, Not Caused by a Heart Valve Problem, Who Are at Risk for Thrombosis [Blood Clots] Due to Having Had a Recent Coronary Event, Such as a Heart Attack or a Procedure to Open the Vessels of the Heart) as a two-by-two factorial study to address two different questions: During 6 months of treatment, how did apixaban compare with a vitamin K antagonist (usually warfarin) in these patients for safety and efficacy, and how did aspirin compare with placebo in this setting for the same endpoints?

The trial enrolled 4,614 patients at 492 sites in 33 countries. All patients in the study received a P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% treated with clopidogrel. The study had roughly as many patients as the combined total of patients enrolled in two smaller, prior studies that had looked at roughly the same questions in similar patients.

“The aspirin part is the more interesting, and probably more unique and important finding,” John H. Alexander, MD, a coinvestigator on the study, said in a video interview. Regardless of the anticoagulant used, patients who received aspirin had a 16% rate of major bleeds or clinically relevant non-major bleeds, compared with a 9% rate among those on placebo, a statistically significant result that underscored the bleeding risk posed by adding aspirin to an anticoagulant and a P2Y12 inhibitor.

The results also showed no statistically significant difference in any efficacy measure with or without aspirin, including the rate of death or hospitalization, or of any individual ischemic endpoint. However the results showed a signal of a small increase in the rates of each of three types of ischemic events – stent thrombosis, MI, and need for urgent revascularization, each of which showed a numerical increase when aspirin was dropped. But the increase was small.

Dr. Lopes calculated that, for example, to prevent one episode of stent thrombosis by treating with aspirin also would cause 15 major or clinically relevant non-major bleeds, which makes inclusion of aspirin something of a judgment call for each patient, said Dr. Alexander, a professor of medicine at Duke. An AFib patient with a high risk for thrombosis but a low risk for bleeding following PCI or an ACS event might be a reasonable patient to treat with aspirin along with apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor, he explained.

The rate of major or clinically relevant bleeds was 11% with apixaban and 15% with a vitamin K antagonist, a statistically significant difference. Patients treated with apixaban also had a significantly reduced rate of death or hospitalization, 24%, compared with 27% among those on the vitamin K antagonist, as well as a significantly lower rate of stroke.

Overall the lowest bleeding rate was in patients on apixaban but no aspirin, a 7% rate, while the highest rate was in patients on a vitamin K antagonist plus aspirin, a 19% rate.

Dr. Alexander said that it would be an overreach to extrapolate these findings to other direct-acting oral anticoagulants, compared with a vitamin K antagonist, but he believed that the findings the study generated about aspirin were probably relevant regardless of the anticoagulant used.
 

mzoler@mdedge.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

HONOLULU – Andexanet alfa rapidly reverses factor Xa inhibition and effectively establishes hemostasis in patients with acute major bleeding, according to a study presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The medication is associated with a low rate of mortality resulting from intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), compared with the general population of patients with ICH receiving anticoagulation.

Factor Xa inhibitors such as apixaban and rivaroxaban effectively prevent thromboembolic events but may cause or exacerbate acute major bleeding. Andexanet alfa, a modified, recombinant, inactive form of human factor Xa, was developed and approved as a reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors. In a 2015 study, andexanet rapidly and safely reversed anti–factor Xa activity in large cohorts of patients without bleeding.
 

A single-cohort study

Truman John Milling Jr., MD, an emergency medicine physician at Dell Seton Medical Center at the University of Texas in Austin, and his colleagues conducted the Andexanet Alfa, a Novel Antidote to the Anticoagulation Effects of Factor Xa Inhibitors (ANNEXA-4) study to evaluate the drug’s safety and efficacy in patients with acute major bleeding associated with treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor. For participants to be eligible, their bleeding had to be life threatening with signs of hemodynamic compromise, be associated with a decrease in hemoglobin level of at least 2 g/dL, or occur in a critical organ such as the brain. An independent academic committee determined whether patients met these criteria.

The trial’s primary efficacy outcomes were change from baseline in anti–factor Xa activity and the percentage of patients with excellent or good hemostatic efficacy at 12 hours. The primary safety endpoints were death, thrombotic events, and the development of neutralizing antibodies to andexanet or to native factor X and factor Xa. The efficacy population included patients with major bleeding and baseline anti–factor Xa activity of at least 75 ng/mL. The safety population included all patients who received a dose of andexanet. The independent committee adjudicated the efficacy and safety outcomes.
 

Hemostasis was sustained for 12 hours

The investigators enrolled 352 participants into the study, all of whom received andexanet and were followed for at least 30 days or until death. The population’s mean age was 77 years. “These were older and sicker patients with a significant amount of comorbid disease,” said Dr. Milling. The primary indication for anticoagulation was atrial fibrillation in 80% of patients. The primary site of bleeding was intracranial in 64% of patients and gastrointestinal in 26% of patients. The remaining 10% of patients had bleeding affecting other areas (such as pericardial or intramuscular bleeding).

The investigators included 254 patients in the efficacy population. At the end of the administration of the andexanet bolus, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity decreased by 92% among participants receiving apixaban, 92% among participants receiving rivaroxaban, and 75% among patients receiving enoxaparin. Among patients receiving apixaban, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity was decreased by 32% at 4 hours, 34% at 8 hours, and 38% at 12 hours. Among patients receiving rivaroxaban, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity was decreased by 42% at 4 hours, 48% at 8 hours, and 62% at 12 hours.

Dr. Milling and his colleagues assessed hemostatic efficacy in 249 patients. Of this group, 82% achieved good or excellent hemostasis. Among participants with good or excellent hemostasis, 84% had excellent results, and 16% had good results. Subanalysis by factor Xa inhibitor, type of bleed, age, and dose of andexanet did not alter the findings significantly.

To determine whether hemostasis had been sustained sufficiently to prevent clinical deterioration, the investigators examined 71 patients with ICH and a single-compartment bleed. From 1 hour to 12 hours, one patient’s outcome changed from excellent/good to poor/none, and one patient’s outcome changed from excellent to good. For the majority of these patients, however, good hemostasis was sustained from 1 to 12 hours.

The rate of thromboembolic events was 9.7%, which is in the expected range for this population, said Dr. Milling. These events were distributed evenly among the 4 weeks of the study. Stroke and deep vein thrombosis accounted for most of these events, and pulmonary emboli and heart attacks occurred as well. “Once we restarted oral anticoagulation ... there were no more thrombotic events,” said Dr. Milling. No patient developed neutralizing antibodies to factor X or factor Xa, nor did any patient develop neutralizing antibodies to andexanet.

The overall mortality rate was 13.9%. The rate of mortality resulting from ICH was 15%, and the rate of mortality resulting from gastrointestinal bleeding was 11%. These results are impressive, considering that patients had received anticoagulants, said Dr. Milling.

Portola Pharmaceuticals, the maker of andexanet alfa, funded the study. Dr. Milling reported receiving funding and honoraria from the Population Health Research Institute at McMasters University, Janssen, CSL Behring, and Octapharma. He also received a small research payment from Portola Pharmaceuticals. Several of the investigators reported receiving funding from Portola Pharmaceuticals.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Milling TJ et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB7.

HONOLULU – Andexanet alfa rapidly reverses factor Xa inhibition and effectively establishes hemostasis in patients with acute major bleeding, according to a study presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The medication is associated with a low rate of mortality resulting from intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), compared with the general population of patients with ICH receiving anticoagulation.

Factor Xa inhibitors such as apixaban and rivaroxaban effectively prevent thromboembolic events but may cause or exacerbate acute major bleeding. Andexanet alfa, a modified, recombinant, inactive form of human factor Xa, was developed and approved as a reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors. In a 2015 study, andexanet rapidly and safely reversed anti–factor Xa activity in large cohorts of patients without bleeding.
 

A single-cohort study

Truman John Milling Jr., MD, an emergency medicine physician at Dell Seton Medical Center at the University of Texas in Austin, and his colleagues conducted the Andexanet Alfa, a Novel Antidote to the Anticoagulation Effects of Factor Xa Inhibitors (ANNEXA-4) study to evaluate the drug’s safety and efficacy in patients with acute major bleeding associated with treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor. For participants to be eligible, their bleeding had to be life threatening with signs of hemodynamic compromise, be associated with a decrease in hemoglobin level of at least 2 g/dL, or occur in a critical organ such as the brain. An independent academic committee determined whether patients met these criteria.

The trial’s primary efficacy outcomes were change from baseline in anti–factor Xa activity and the percentage of patients with excellent or good hemostatic efficacy at 12 hours. The primary safety endpoints were death, thrombotic events, and the development of neutralizing antibodies to andexanet or to native factor X and factor Xa. The efficacy population included patients with major bleeding and baseline anti–factor Xa activity of at least 75 ng/mL. The safety population included all patients who received a dose of andexanet. The independent committee adjudicated the efficacy and safety outcomes.
 

Hemostasis was sustained for 12 hours

The investigators enrolled 352 participants into the study, all of whom received andexanet and were followed for at least 30 days or until death. The population’s mean age was 77 years. “These were older and sicker patients with a significant amount of comorbid disease,” said Dr. Milling. The primary indication for anticoagulation was atrial fibrillation in 80% of patients. The primary site of bleeding was intracranial in 64% of patients and gastrointestinal in 26% of patients. The remaining 10% of patients had bleeding affecting other areas (such as pericardial or intramuscular bleeding).

The investigators included 254 patients in the efficacy population. At the end of the administration of the andexanet bolus, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity decreased by 92% among participants receiving apixaban, 92% among participants receiving rivaroxaban, and 75% among patients receiving enoxaparin. Among patients receiving apixaban, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity was decreased by 32% at 4 hours, 34% at 8 hours, and 38% at 12 hours. Among patients receiving rivaroxaban, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity was decreased by 42% at 4 hours, 48% at 8 hours, and 62% at 12 hours.

Dr. Milling and his colleagues assessed hemostatic efficacy in 249 patients. Of this group, 82% achieved good or excellent hemostasis. Among participants with good or excellent hemostasis, 84% had excellent results, and 16% had good results. Subanalysis by factor Xa inhibitor, type of bleed, age, and dose of andexanet did not alter the findings significantly.

To determine whether hemostasis had been sustained sufficiently to prevent clinical deterioration, the investigators examined 71 patients with ICH and a single-compartment bleed. From 1 hour to 12 hours, one patient’s outcome changed from excellent/good to poor/none, and one patient’s outcome changed from excellent to good. For the majority of these patients, however, good hemostasis was sustained from 1 to 12 hours.

The rate of thromboembolic events was 9.7%, which is in the expected range for this population, said Dr. Milling. These events were distributed evenly among the 4 weeks of the study. Stroke and deep vein thrombosis accounted for most of these events, and pulmonary emboli and heart attacks occurred as well. “Once we restarted oral anticoagulation ... there were no more thrombotic events,” said Dr. Milling. No patient developed neutralizing antibodies to factor X or factor Xa, nor did any patient develop neutralizing antibodies to andexanet.

The overall mortality rate was 13.9%. The rate of mortality resulting from ICH was 15%, and the rate of mortality resulting from gastrointestinal bleeding was 11%. These results are impressive, considering that patients had received anticoagulants, said Dr. Milling.

Portola Pharmaceuticals, the maker of andexanet alfa, funded the study. Dr. Milling reported receiving funding and honoraria from the Population Health Research Institute at McMasters University, Janssen, CSL Behring, and Octapharma. He also received a small research payment from Portola Pharmaceuticals. Several of the investigators reported receiving funding from Portola Pharmaceuticals.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Milling TJ et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB7.

HONOLULU – Andexanet alfa rapidly reverses factor Xa inhibition and effectively establishes hemostasis in patients with acute major bleeding, according to a study presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The medication is associated with a low rate of mortality resulting from intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), compared with the general population of patients with ICH receiving anticoagulation.

Factor Xa inhibitors such as apixaban and rivaroxaban effectively prevent thromboembolic events but may cause or exacerbate acute major bleeding. Andexanet alfa, a modified, recombinant, inactive form of human factor Xa, was developed and approved as a reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors. In a 2015 study, andexanet rapidly and safely reversed anti–factor Xa activity in large cohorts of patients without bleeding.
 

A single-cohort study

Truman John Milling Jr., MD, an emergency medicine physician at Dell Seton Medical Center at the University of Texas in Austin, and his colleagues conducted the Andexanet Alfa, a Novel Antidote to the Anticoagulation Effects of Factor Xa Inhibitors (ANNEXA-4) study to evaluate the drug’s safety and efficacy in patients with acute major bleeding associated with treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor. For participants to be eligible, their bleeding had to be life threatening with signs of hemodynamic compromise, be associated with a decrease in hemoglobin level of at least 2 g/dL, or occur in a critical organ such as the brain. An independent academic committee determined whether patients met these criteria.

The trial’s primary efficacy outcomes were change from baseline in anti–factor Xa activity and the percentage of patients with excellent or good hemostatic efficacy at 12 hours. The primary safety endpoints were death, thrombotic events, and the development of neutralizing antibodies to andexanet or to native factor X and factor Xa. The efficacy population included patients with major bleeding and baseline anti–factor Xa activity of at least 75 ng/mL. The safety population included all patients who received a dose of andexanet. The independent committee adjudicated the efficacy and safety outcomes.
 

Hemostasis was sustained for 12 hours

The investigators enrolled 352 participants into the study, all of whom received andexanet and were followed for at least 30 days or until death. The population’s mean age was 77 years. “These were older and sicker patients with a significant amount of comorbid disease,” said Dr. Milling. The primary indication for anticoagulation was atrial fibrillation in 80% of patients. The primary site of bleeding was intracranial in 64% of patients and gastrointestinal in 26% of patients. The remaining 10% of patients had bleeding affecting other areas (such as pericardial or intramuscular bleeding).

The investigators included 254 patients in the efficacy population. At the end of the administration of the andexanet bolus, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity decreased by 92% among participants receiving apixaban, 92% among participants receiving rivaroxaban, and 75% among patients receiving enoxaparin. Among patients receiving apixaban, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity was decreased by 32% at 4 hours, 34% at 8 hours, and 38% at 12 hours. Among patients receiving rivaroxaban, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity was decreased by 42% at 4 hours, 48% at 8 hours, and 62% at 12 hours.

Dr. Milling and his colleagues assessed hemostatic efficacy in 249 patients. Of this group, 82% achieved good or excellent hemostasis. Among participants with good or excellent hemostasis, 84% had excellent results, and 16% had good results. Subanalysis by factor Xa inhibitor, type of bleed, age, and dose of andexanet did not alter the findings significantly.

To determine whether hemostasis had been sustained sufficiently to prevent clinical deterioration, the investigators examined 71 patients with ICH and a single-compartment bleed. From 1 hour to 12 hours, one patient’s outcome changed from excellent/good to poor/none, and one patient’s outcome changed from excellent to good. For the majority of these patients, however, good hemostasis was sustained from 1 to 12 hours.

The rate of thromboembolic events was 9.7%, which is in the expected range for this population, said Dr. Milling. These events were distributed evenly among the 4 weeks of the study. Stroke and deep vein thrombosis accounted for most of these events, and pulmonary emboli and heart attacks occurred as well. “Once we restarted oral anticoagulation ... there were no more thrombotic events,” said Dr. Milling. No patient developed neutralizing antibodies to factor X or factor Xa, nor did any patient develop neutralizing antibodies to andexanet.

The overall mortality rate was 13.9%. The rate of mortality resulting from ICH was 15%, and the rate of mortality resulting from gastrointestinal bleeding was 11%. These results are impressive, considering that patients had received anticoagulants, said Dr. Milling.

Portola Pharmaceuticals, the maker of andexanet alfa, funded the study. Dr. Milling reported receiving funding and honoraria from the Population Health Research Institute at McMasters University, Janssen, CSL Behring, and Octapharma. He also received a small research payment from Portola Pharmaceuticals. Several of the investigators reported receiving funding from Portola Pharmaceuticals.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Milling TJ et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB7.

Immediate angiography after resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest does not improve survival compared to delaying angiography until neurologic recovery in patients with no evidence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

The Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest (COACT) trial involved 552 patients who had been successfully resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, without signs of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The study also excluded patients with shock and severe renal dysfunction, and was not blinded, so this may have influenced treatment decisions.

Patients were randomized either to immediate coronary angiography after resuscitation, while still unconscious, or delayed coronary angiography until they had recovered neurologically, which was generally after discharge from intensive care.

Overall, 97.1% of patients in the immediate angiography group and 64.9% of the delayed angiography group underwent coronary angiography, with the median time until angiography being 0.8 hours in the immediate group and 119.9 hours in the delayed group.

In the immediate angiography group, 3.4% of patients were found to have an acute coronary occlusion, while in the delayed group that figure was 7.6%. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 33% of the immediate angiography group and 24.2% of the delayed angiography group.

Survival rates at 90 days were not significantly different between the two groups; 64.5% of the immediate angiography group and 67.2% of the delayed angiography group survived to 90 days (OR 0.89, P = 0.51). The two groups also did not significantly differ in the secondary endpoints of survival with good cerebral performance or mild-to-moderate disability (62.9% vs. 64.4%).

“Our findings do not corroborate findings of previous observational studies, which showed a survival benefit with immediate coronary angiography in patients who had cardiac arrest without STEMI,” wrote Dr. Jorrit S. Lemkes, from the department of cardiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center VUmc, and co-authors. “This difference could be related to the observational nature of the previous studies, which may have resulted in selection bias that favored treating patients who had a presumed better prognosis with a strategy of immediate angiography.”

They also suggested the lack of benefit from early coronary angiography could relate to the fact that majority of those who died did so as a result of neurological complications, as has been seen in other studies of resuscitation.

The authors did note that the vast majority of patients in the study had stable coronary artery lesions, and only 5% showed thrombotic occlusions. They suggested this could explain their results, as percutaneous coronary intervention was not associated with improved outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery lesions – only in patients with acute thrombotic coronary occlusions.

However, they did see the suggestion of a treatment effect in patients over 70 years old and those with a history of coronary artery disease.

The study also revealed differences in subsequent treatment between patients who underwent immediate coronary angiography and those who had delayed angiography. Those in the delayed group were significantly more likely to be treated with salicylates or a P2Y12 inhibitor than those in the immediate angiography group.

“This observation illustrates how the result of immediate coronary angiography can influence treatment, since patients who did not have evidence of coronary artery disease on angiography do not require antiplatelet therapy,” the authors wrote.

Conversely, patients in the immediate angiography were more likely to receive a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. However the authors said these different strategies did not translate to any significant difference in major bleeding.
 

The COACT trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr.Lemkes's presentation.

COACT was supported by the Netherlands Heart Institute, Biotronik and AstraZeneca. Two authors declared grants and support from the study supporters, both in and outside the context of the study. One author declared grants from private industry outside the study. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Lemkes J et al. NEJM, 2019, March 18. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816897
 

Immediate angiography after resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest does not improve survival compared to delaying angiography until neurologic recovery in patients with no evidence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

The Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest (COACT) trial involved 552 patients who had been successfully resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, without signs of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The study also excluded patients with shock and severe renal dysfunction, and was not blinded, so this may have influenced treatment decisions.

Patients were randomized either to immediate coronary angiography after resuscitation, while still unconscious, or delayed coronary angiography until they had recovered neurologically, which was generally after discharge from intensive care.

Overall, 97.1% of patients in the immediate angiography group and 64.9% of the delayed angiography group underwent coronary angiography, with the median time until angiography being 0.8 hours in the immediate group and 119.9 hours in the delayed group.

In the immediate angiography group, 3.4% of patients were found to have an acute coronary occlusion, while in the delayed group that figure was 7.6%. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 33% of the immediate angiography group and 24.2% of the delayed angiography group.

Survival rates at 90 days were not significantly different between the two groups; 64.5% of the immediate angiography group and 67.2% of the delayed angiography group survived to 90 days (OR 0.89, P = 0.51). The two groups also did not significantly differ in the secondary endpoints of survival with good cerebral performance or mild-to-moderate disability (62.9% vs. 64.4%).

“Our findings do not corroborate findings of previous observational studies, which showed a survival benefit with immediate coronary angiography in patients who had cardiac arrest without STEMI,” wrote Dr. Jorrit S. Lemkes, from the department of cardiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center VUmc, and co-authors. “This difference could be related to the observational nature of the previous studies, which may have resulted in selection bias that favored treating patients who had a presumed better prognosis with a strategy of immediate angiography.”

They also suggested the lack of benefit from early coronary angiography could relate to the fact that majority of those who died did so as a result of neurological complications, as has been seen in other studies of resuscitation.

The authors did note that the vast majority of patients in the study had stable coronary artery lesions, and only 5% showed thrombotic occlusions. They suggested this could explain their results, as percutaneous coronary intervention was not associated with improved outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery lesions – only in patients with acute thrombotic coronary occlusions.

However, they did see the suggestion of a treatment effect in patients over 70 years old and those with a history of coronary artery disease.

The study also revealed differences in subsequent treatment between patients who underwent immediate coronary angiography and those who had delayed angiography. Those in the delayed group were significantly more likely to be treated with salicylates or a P2Y12 inhibitor than those in the immediate angiography group.

“This observation illustrates how the result of immediate coronary angiography can influence treatment, since patients who did not have evidence of coronary artery disease on angiography do not require antiplatelet therapy,” the authors wrote.

Conversely, patients in the immediate angiography were more likely to receive a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. However the authors said these different strategies did not translate to any significant difference in major bleeding.
 

The COACT trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr.Lemkes's presentation.

COACT was supported by the Netherlands Heart Institute, Biotronik and AstraZeneca. Two authors declared grants and support from the study supporters, both in and outside the context of the study. One author declared grants from private industry outside the study. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Lemkes J et al. NEJM, 2019, March 18. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816897
 

Immediate angiography after resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest does not improve survival compared to delaying angiography until neurologic recovery in patients with no evidence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

The Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest (COACT) trial involved 552 patients who had been successfully resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, without signs of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The study also excluded patients with shock and severe renal dysfunction, and was not blinded, so this may have influenced treatment decisions.

Patients were randomized either to immediate coronary angiography after resuscitation, while still unconscious, or delayed coronary angiography until they had recovered neurologically, which was generally after discharge from intensive care.

Overall, 97.1% of patients in the immediate angiography group and 64.9% of the delayed angiography group underwent coronary angiography, with the median time until angiography being 0.8 hours in the immediate group and 119.9 hours in the delayed group.

In the immediate angiography group, 3.4% of patients were found to have an acute coronary occlusion, while in the delayed group that figure was 7.6%. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 33% of the immediate angiography group and 24.2% of the delayed angiography group.

Survival rates at 90 days were not significantly different between the two groups; 64.5% of the immediate angiography group and 67.2% of the delayed angiography group survived to 90 days (OR 0.89, P = 0.51). The two groups also did not significantly differ in the secondary endpoints of survival with good cerebral performance or mild-to-moderate disability (62.9% vs. 64.4%).

“Our findings do not corroborate findings of previous observational studies, which showed a survival benefit with immediate coronary angiography in patients who had cardiac arrest without STEMI,” wrote Dr. Jorrit S. Lemkes, from the department of cardiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center VUmc, and co-authors. “This difference could be related to the observational nature of the previous studies, which may have resulted in selection bias that favored treating patients who had a presumed better prognosis with a strategy of immediate angiography.”

They also suggested the lack of benefit from early coronary angiography could relate to the fact that majority of those who died did so as a result of neurological complications, as has been seen in other studies of resuscitation.

The authors did note that the vast majority of patients in the study had stable coronary artery lesions, and only 5% showed thrombotic occlusions. They suggested this could explain their results, as percutaneous coronary intervention was not associated with improved outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery lesions – only in patients with acute thrombotic coronary occlusions.

However, they did see the suggestion of a treatment effect in patients over 70 years old and those with a history of coronary artery disease.

The study also revealed differences in subsequent treatment between patients who underwent immediate coronary angiography and those who had delayed angiography. Those in the delayed group were significantly more likely to be treated with salicylates or a P2Y12 inhibitor than those in the immediate angiography group.

“This observation illustrates how the result of immediate coronary angiography can influence treatment, since patients who did not have evidence of coronary artery disease on angiography do not require antiplatelet therapy,” the authors wrote.

Conversely, patients in the immediate angiography were more likely to receive a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. However the authors said these different strategies did not translate to any significant difference in major bleeding.
 

The COACT trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr.Lemkes's presentation.

COACT was supported by the Netherlands Heart Institute, Biotronik and AstraZeneca. Two authors declared grants and support from the study supporters, both in and outside the context of the study. One author declared grants from private industry outside the study. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Lemkes J et al. NEJM, 2019, March 18. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816897
 

Amlodipine plus either hydrochlorothiazide or perindopril effectively reduced blood pressure better than perindopril and hydrochlorothiazide in black African patients with hypertension, based on data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

“(A) long-acting dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker (in this case, amlodipine) may be critical to more efficacious blood-pressure lowering among black patients as part of the two-drug combinations used (in Africa),” wrote lead author Dike B. Ojji, PhD, of the University of Abuja in Gwagwalada, Abuja, Nigeria, and his coauthors. “These results contrast with recommendations for black patients in the most recent U.S. guidelines” which recommend either a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic in combination with a different drug class.

The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

In the CREOLE study, Dr. Ojji and his colleagues enrolled 728 black patients, mean age 51 years and 63% of them women, in a randomized, single-blind, three-group trial across six countries in sub-Saharan Africa. All patients had uncontrolled hypertension and were assigned to one of three treatment groups: amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide (n = 244), amlodipine plus perindopril (n = 243), and perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (n = 241). Patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure measuring at baseline and at 6 months.

Of the 621 patients who completed the trial, those in the two groups receiving amlodipine had a larger mean reduction in systolic blood pressure after 6 months than the group receiving perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide. Compared with the perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group, the amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide group had an additional -3.14 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure from baseline (95% confidence interval, -5.90 to -0.38, P = 0.03) while the amlodipine plus perindopril group had an additional -3.00 mm Hg reduction (95% CI, -5.81 to -0.20, P = 0.04). The difference between the amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide group and the amlodipine plus perindopril group was -0.14 mm Hg (95% CI, -2.90 to 2.61, P = 0.92).

The limitations of the study included using nonmatching trial drugs and not adjusting the P values for the three comparisons of the primary end point, the authors wrote. It’s uncertain whether the findings can be extrapolated to black patients with diabetes or to those living outside of sub-Saharan Africa.

The study was sponsored by a grant from the GlaxoSmithKline Africa Noncommunicable Disease Open Lab. Trial drugs were donated by Aspen Pharmacare. Two authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCE: Ojji DB et al. NEJM. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901113.

Amlodipine plus either hydrochlorothiazide or perindopril effectively reduced blood pressure better than perindopril and hydrochlorothiazide in black African patients with hypertension, based on data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

“(A) long-acting dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker (in this case, amlodipine) may be critical to more efficacious blood-pressure lowering among black patients as part of the two-drug combinations used (in Africa),” wrote lead author Dike B. Ojji, PhD, of the University of Abuja in Gwagwalada, Abuja, Nigeria, and his coauthors. “These results contrast with recommendations for black patients in the most recent U.S. guidelines” which recommend either a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic in combination with a different drug class.

The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

In the CREOLE study, Dr. Ojji and his colleagues enrolled 728 black patients, mean age 51 years and 63% of them women, in a randomized, single-blind, three-group trial across six countries in sub-Saharan Africa. All patients had uncontrolled hypertension and were assigned to one of three treatment groups: amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide (n = 244), amlodipine plus perindopril (n = 243), and perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (n = 241). Patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure measuring at baseline and at 6 months.

Of the 621 patients who completed the trial, those in the two groups receiving amlodipine had a larger mean reduction in systolic blood pressure after 6 months than the group receiving perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide. Compared with the perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group, the amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide group had an additional -3.14 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure from baseline (95% confidence interval, -5.90 to -0.38, P = 0.03) while the amlodipine plus perindopril group had an additional -3.00 mm Hg reduction (95% CI, -5.81 to -0.20, P = 0.04). The difference between the amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide group and the amlodipine plus perindopril group was -0.14 mm Hg (95% CI, -2.90 to 2.61, P = 0.92).

The limitations of the study included using nonmatching trial drugs and not adjusting the P values for the three comparisons of the primary end point, the authors wrote. It’s uncertain whether the findings can be extrapolated to black patients with diabetes or to those living outside of sub-Saharan Africa.

The study was sponsored by a grant from the GlaxoSmithKline Africa Noncommunicable Disease Open Lab. Trial drugs were donated by Aspen Pharmacare. Two authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCE: Ojji DB et al. NEJM. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901113.

Amlodipine plus either hydrochlorothiazide or perindopril effectively reduced blood pressure better than perindopril and hydrochlorothiazide in black African patients with hypertension, based on data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

“(A) long-acting dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker (in this case, amlodipine) may be critical to more efficacious blood-pressure lowering among black patients as part of the two-drug combinations used (in Africa),” wrote lead author Dike B. Ojji, PhD, of the University of Abuja in Gwagwalada, Abuja, Nigeria, and his coauthors. “These results contrast with recommendations for black patients in the most recent U.S. guidelines” which recommend either a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic in combination with a different drug class.

The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

In the CREOLE study, Dr. Ojji and his colleagues enrolled 728 black patients, mean age 51 years and 63% of them women, in a randomized, single-blind, three-group trial across six countries in sub-Saharan Africa. All patients had uncontrolled hypertension and were assigned to one of three treatment groups: amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide (n = 244), amlodipine plus perindopril (n = 243), and perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (n = 241). Patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure measuring at baseline and at 6 months.

Of the 621 patients who completed the trial, those in the two groups receiving amlodipine had a larger mean reduction in systolic blood pressure after 6 months than the group receiving perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide. Compared with the perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group, the amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide group had an additional -3.14 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure from baseline (95% confidence interval, -5.90 to -0.38, P = 0.03) while the amlodipine plus perindopril group had an additional -3.00 mm Hg reduction (95% CI, -5.81 to -0.20, P = 0.04). The difference between the amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide group and the amlodipine plus perindopril group was -0.14 mm Hg (95% CI, -2.90 to 2.61, P = 0.92).

The limitations of the study included using nonmatching trial drugs and not adjusting the P values for the three comparisons of the primary end point, the authors wrote. It’s uncertain whether the findings can be extrapolated to black patients with diabetes or to those living outside of sub-Saharan Africa.

The study was sponsored by a grant from the GlaxoSmithKline Africa Noncommunicable Disease Open Lab. Trial drugs were donated by Aspen Pharmacare. Two authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCE: Ojji DB et al. NEJM. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901113.

NEW ORLEANS – The first medical society guideline to comprehensively address all facets of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease put special emphasis on a team-based approach that takes into account each person’s social determinants of health. The guideline substantially dialed down prior recommendations on aspirin for primary prevention by calling for no use in people older than 70 years and infrequent use in those 40-70 years old.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association released their 2019 guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease on March 17, during the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 17;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010.). The guideline is a “one-stop shop” that pulls together existing recommendations from the two organizations and combines it with some new recommendations that address issues such as aspirin prophylaxis, and the social setting of each person, said Donna K. Arnett, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at the University of Kentucky, dean of the university’s College of Public Health, and co-chair of the guideline writing panel.

“We made the social determinants of health front and center. With many people, clinicians don’t ask whether they have access to healthy foods or a way to get to the pharmacy. Asking about these issues is step one,” toward helping people address their social situation, Dr. Arnett said while introducing the new guideline in a press briefing. The guideline recommends that clinicians assess the social determinants for each person treated for cardiovascular disease prevention using a screening tool developed by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and made available by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM Perspectives. 2017; doi:10.31478/201705b).

“No other guideline has highlighted the social determinants of health,” noted Erin D. Michos, MD, associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, and a member of the guideline-writing panel. Other overarching themes of the guideline are its emphasis on the need for a team of clinicians to deliver all the disparate and time-consuming facets of care needed for comprehensive primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, and its call for a healthy lifestyle throughout life as foundations for prevention, Dr. Michos said in an interview.

With 48 recommendations, the guideline also deals with prevention issues such as a healthy diet and body mass, appropriate control of diabetes, smoking cessation, and control of blood pressure and cholesterol (see chart). The writing committee took the cholesterol and blood pressure recommendations directly from recent guidelines from the ACC and AHA in 2017 (blood pressure:J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e177-e248) and 2018 (cholesterol:Circulation. 2018 Nov 10;doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000625).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Generally no, occasionally yes,” is aspirin appropriate for people in this age group, notably those at high risk for cardiovascular disease and also at low risk for bleeding, explained Amit Khera, MD, a guideline-panel member, and professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

As a guideline for primary prevention, a prime target audience is primary care physicians, who would need to be instrumental in applying the guideline. But the guideline recommendations released by the ACC and AHA for blood pressure management in 2017 were not accepted by U.S. groups that represent primary care physicians, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

John J. Warner, MD, an interventional cardiologist, executive vice president for health system affairs at UT Southwestern, and president of the AHA when the blood pressure guideline came out said that the ACC and AHA “learned some lessons” from the blood pressure experience. The societies responded this time around by “trying to view the document through as many lenses as possible” during the peer review process, Dr. Warner said during the press conference.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

She especially applauded the recommendations to assess each person’s social determinants of health, the team-care approach, and the recommendations dealing with diet and other aspects of a healthy lifestyle. “This was a perfect time” to bring together the existing blood pressure and cholesterol guidelines, the new guidance on aspirin use, and the other recommendation in a single document, she said in an interview.

Dr. Arnett, Dr. Michos, Dr. Khera, Dr. Warner, and Dr. Gulati had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Arnett DK et al. J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 17;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010.

NEW ORLEANS – The first medical society guideline to comprehensively address all facets of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease put special emphasis on a team-based approach that takes into account each person’s social determinants of health. The guideline substantially dialed down prior recommendations on aspirin for primary prevention by calling for no use in people older than 70 years and infrequent use in those 40-70 years old.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association released their 2019 guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease on March 17, during the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 17;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010.). The guideline is a “one-stop shop” that pulls together existing recommendations from the two organizations and combines it with some new recommendations that address issues such as aspirin prophylaxis, and the social setting of each person, said Donna K. Arnett, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at the University of Kentucky, dean of the university’s College of Public Health, and co-chair of the guideline writing panel.

“We made the social determinants of health front and center. With many people, clinicians don’t ask whether they have access to healthy foods or a way to get to the pharmacy. Asking about these issues is step one,” toward helping people address their social situation, Dr. Arnett said while introducing the new guideline in a press briefing. The guideline recommends that clinicians assess the social determinants for each person treated for cardiovascular disease prevention using a screening tool developed by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and made available by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM Perspectives. 2017; doi:10.31478/201705b).

“No other guideline has highlighted the social determinants of health,” noted Erin D. Michos, MD, associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, and a member of the guideline-writing panel. Other overarching themes of the guideline are its emphasis on the need for a team of clinicians to deliver all the disparate and time-consuming facets of care needed for comprehensive primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, and its call for a healthy lifestyle throughout life as foundations for prevention, Dr. Michos said in an interview.

With 48 recommendations, the guideline also deals with prevention issues such as a healthy diet and body mass, appropriate control of diabetes, smoking cessation, and control of blood pressure and cholesterol (see chart). The writing committee took the cholesterol and blood pressure recommendations directly from recent guidelines from the ACC and AHA in 2017 (blood pressure:J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e177-e248) and 2018 (cholesterol:Circulation. 2018 Nov 10;doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000625).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Generally no, occasionally yes,” is aspirin appropriate for people in this age group, notably those at high risk for cardiovascular disease and also at low risk for bleeding, explained Amit Khera, MD, a guideline-panel member, and professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

As a guideline for primary prevention, a prime target audience is primary care physicians, who would need to be instrumental in applying the guideline. But the guideline recommendations released by the ACC and AHA for blood pressure management in 2017 were not accepted by U.S. groups that represent primary care physicians, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

John J. Warner, MD, an interventional cardiologist, executive vice president for health system affairs at UT Southwestern, and president of the AHA when the blood pressure guideline came out said that the ACC and AHA “learned some lessons” from the blood pressure experience. The societies responded this time around by “trying to view the document through as many lenses as possible” during the peer review process, Dr. Warner said during the press conference.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

She especially applauded the recommendations to assess each person’s social determinants of health, the team-care approach, and the recommendations dealing with diet and other aspects of a healthy lifestyle. “This was a perfect time” to bring together the existing blood pressure and cholesterol guidelines, the new guidance on aspirin use, and the other recommendation in a single document, she said in an interview.

Dr. Arnett, Dr. Michos, Dr. Khera, Dr. Warner, and Dr. Gulati had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Arnett DK et al. J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 17;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010.

NEW ORLEANS – The first medical society guideline to comprehensively address all facets of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease put special emphasis on a team-based approach that takes into account each person’s social determinants of health. The guideline substantially dialed down prior recommendations on aspirin for primary prevention by calling for no use in people older than 70 years and infrequent use in those 40-70 years old.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association released their 2019 guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease on March 17, during the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 17;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010.). The guideline is a “one-stop shop” that pulls together existing recommendations from the two organizations and combines it with some new recommendations that address issues such as aspirin prophylaxis, and the social setting of each person, said Donna K. Arnett, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at the University of Kentucky, dean of the university’s College of Public Health, and co-chair of the guideline writing panel.

“We made the social determinants of health front and center. With many people, clinicians don’t ask whether they have access to healthy foods or a way to get to the pharmacy. Asking about these issues is step one,” toward helping people address their social situation, Dr. Arnett said while introducing the new guideline in a press briefing. The guideline recommends that clinicians assess the social determinants for each person treated for cardiovascular disease prevention using a screening tool developed by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and made available by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM Perspectives. 2017; doi:10.31478/201705b).

“No other guideline has highlighted the social determinants of health,” noted Erin D. Michos, MD, associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, and a member of the guideline-writing panel. Other overarching themes of the guideline are its emphasis on the need for a team of clinicians to deliver all the disparate and time-consuming facets of care needed for comprehensive primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, and its call for a healthy lifestyle throughout life as foundations for prevention, Dr. Michos said in an interview.

With 48 recommendations, the guideline also deals with prevention issues such as a healthy diet and body mass, appropriate control of diabetes, smoking cessation, and control of blood pressure and cholesterol (see chart). The writing committee took the cholesterol and blood pressure recommendations directly from recent guidelines from the ACC and AHA in 2017 (blood pressure:J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e177-e248) and 2018 (cholesterol:Circulation. 2018 Nov 10;doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000625).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Generally no, occasionally yes,” is aspirin appropriate for people in this age group, notably those at high risk for cardiovascular disease and also at low risk for bleeding, explained Amit Khera, MD, a guideline-panel member, and professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

As a guideline for primary prevention, a prime target audience is primary care physicians, who would need to be instrumental in applying the guideline. But the guideline recommendations released by the ACC and AHA for blood pressure management in 2017 were not accepted by U.S. groups that represent primary care physicians, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

John J. Warner, MD, an interventional cardiologist, executive vice president for health system affairs at UT Southwestern, and president of the AHA when the blood pressure guideline came out said that the ACC and AHA “learned some lessons” from the blood pressure experience. The societies responded this time around by “trying to view the document through as many lenses as possible” during the peer review process, Dr. Warner said during the press conference.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

She especially applauded the recommendations to assess each person’s social determinants of health, the team-care approach, and the recommendations dealing with diet and other aspects of a healthy lifestyle. “This was a perfect time” to bring together the existing blood pressure and cholesterol guidelines, the new guidance on aspirin use, and the other recommendation in a single document, she said in an interview.

Dr. Arnett, Dr. Michos, Dr. Khera, Dr. Warner, and Dr. Gulati had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Arnett DK et al. J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 17;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010.