User login
Anticoagulation Hub contains news and clinical review articles for physicians seeking the most up-to-date information on the rapidly evolving treatment options for preventing stroke, acute coronary events, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism in at-risk patients. The Anticoagulation Hub is powered by Frontline Medical Communications.
JAK inhibitors for RA: Is VTE risk overblown?
MAUI, HAWAII – Rheumatologists, regulatory agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry all have gone off the deep end in their fretting over what appears to be a low rate of venous thromboembolic events in the major randomized trials of the oral Janus kinase inhibitors for RA, Mark C. Genovese, MD, asserted at the 2018 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“The reality is all of our drugs pose potential risks. Unfortunately, I think that at least for the moment, the field has turned all attention in one direction: VTE [venous thromboembolic] events. I suspect there’s some truth [to the possible associated risk]. Certainly we are seeing these events. The question is, how overdone is this?” according to Dr. Genovese, professor of medicine and cochief of the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.
“I think the upadacitinib data has been entirely overshadowed by concerns about VTEs,” he said. “In the last year, we saw three significant phase 3 studies on upadacitinib arrive in the rheumatology community, and I think the only thing we talked about was VTEs.”
All parties interested in developing Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for the treatment of RA began to freak out about a possible increase in VTEs when in April 2017 the Food and Drug Administration turned down Eli Lilly and Incyte’s initial application for marketing approval of the JAK inhibitor baricitinib. Among the problems the agency cited was evidence of potential thrombotic risk.
The VTE rate in baricitinib clinical trials up to 48 weeks in duration was 0.53 events/100 patient-years, with no significant difference in risk between the2-mg and 4-mg doses. This appears to be a class effect for the oral JAK inhibitors, as low rates of VTE, albeit numerically higher than in placebo-treated controls, have also been recorded in the RA development programs for tofacitinib (Xeljanz) as well as the investigational agents filgotinib and upadacitinib, the rheumatologist noted.
This begs the question of whether these VTE rates are significantly higher than background rates in patients with RA or other rheumatologic diseases, which are known to be elevated relative to the general population. Indeed, a retrospective study of insurance claims data by investigators at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, concluded that the VTE rate in RA patients was 0.61 events/100 patient-years, 120% greater than in a matched patient population without RA. After fully adjusting for comorbid conditions and demographics, the relative risk increase associated with RA dropped to 40%, still significantly higher than in controls (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2013 Oct;65[10]:1600-7).
Similarly, Canadian investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 25 studies with VTE data in patients with RA, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, systemic sclerosis, or inflammatory myositis. This meta-analysis included 10 studies of more than 5.2 million RA patients and nearly 900,000 controls. The conclusion: each of these rheumatic diseases was associated with a VTE rate more than three times higher than in the general population (Arthritis Res Ther. 2014 Sep 25;16[5]:435).
“Patients with RA are at higher risk for VTE than those without RA. It’s unfortunate, and it’s certainly something I don’t think many of us have thought much about before. It’s something we don’t often get to see and something we don’t like to think about,” the rheumatologist observed.
Dr. Genovese admitted to a degree of personal frustration with the current tunnel vision focus on VTEs in JAK inhibitor trials. At the 2017 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology he presented the results of the phase 3 SELECT-BEYOND study in which 499 RA patients who had previously failed to respond or were intolerant to biologic therapy were randomized to once daily upadacitinib at 15 or 30 mg or placebo on top of background methotrexate. At week 12, the ACR 20 response rate was 65% for upadacitinib at 15 mg, 56% at 30 mg, and 28% in placebo-treated controls.
“That’s almost a 40% placebo-adjusted response rate. In fact, it’s the highest response I’ve ever seen in a biologic inadequate-responder population. This really looked pretty good, but I don’t think anyone ever took notice. Why not? Because we were all worried about VTE,” he said.
There were in fact a handful of VTEs in upadacitinib-treated patients, Dr. Genovese was quick to note. But he was more impressed by the week 12 ACR 20 responses in patients who had previously failed on three or more biologics: 71% with upadacitinib at 15 mg and 50% at 30 mg, compared with 23% in controls. Moreover, among patients with a baseline history of failure to respond to anti–interleukin-6 therapy, the week 12 ACR 20 rate was 56% with upadacitinib at 15 mg and 58% at 30 mg, versus 20% in controls.
“This looks like a pretty effective drug for patients who’ve failed everything else in our practice,” he commented.
Dr. Genovese reminded his audience that the rheumatology community has a history of overreacting to safety signals in the early days after introduction of new therapies. Examples: tuberculosis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, lymphoma with abatacept (Orencia), lymphoma with anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, and cardiovascular events with anti–interleukin-6 inhibition.
“PML [progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy] is a breathtaking side effect with rituximab [Rituxan], but we’ve gotten over that. We recognize that it’s a potential problem, but we still prescribe rituximab,” the rheumatologist noted. “We’re probably going to need to address the issue of which of our patients are potentially at higher risk for VTE, and maybe we avoid this class in those patients. Like we now do as we look at patients we think are at increased risk for infection, or multiple sclerosis, or TB, we may also need to think of VTE risk.”
But , he argued. There is a pressing unmet need for new therapies for RA with novel mechanisms of action. Only about one-half of patients on contemporary biologic therapies are still on that agent 5 years after initiating therapy.
“Virtually all our patients are partial responders. Everybody gets some benefit. But true remission is achieved by only a minority,” Dr. Genovese said. “The gap between where we are and where we want to be is actually much greater than we often perceive.”
He reported having financial relationships with AbbVie, which is developing upadacitinib, and more than a dozen other medical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – Rheumatologists, regulatory agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry all have gone off the deep end in their fretting over what appears to be a low rate of venous thromboembolic events in the major randomized trials of the oral Janus kinase inhibitors for RA, Mark C. Genovese, MD, asserted at the 2018 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“The reality is all of our drugs pose potential risks. Unfortunately, I think that at least for the moment, the field has turned all attention in one direction: VTE [venous thromboembolic] events. I suspect there’s some truth [to the possible associated risk]. Certainly we are seeing these events. The question is, how overdone is this?” according to Dr. Genovese, professor of medicine and cochief of the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.
“I think the upadacitinib data has been entirely overshadowed by concerns about VTEs,” he said. “In the last year, we saw three significant phase 3 studies on upadacitinib arrive in the rheumatology community, and I think the only thing we talked about was VTEs.”
All parties interested in developing Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for the treatment of RA began to freak out about a possible increase in VTEs when in April 2017 the Food and Drug Administration turned down Eli Lilly and Incyte’s initial application for marketing approval of the JAK inhibitor baricitinib. Among the problems the agency cited was evidence of potential thrombotic risk.
The VTE rate in baricitinib clinical trials up to 48 weeks in duration was 0.53 events/100 patient-years, with no significant difference in risk between the2-mg and 4-mg doses. This appears to be a class effect for the oral JAK inhibitors, as low rates of VTE, albeit numerically higher than in placebo-treated controls, have also been recorded in the RA development programs for tofacitinib (Xeljanz) as well as the investigational agents filgotinib and upadacitinib, the rheumatologist noted.
This begs the question of whether these VTE rates are significantly higher than background rates in patients with RA or other rheumatologic diseases, which are known to be elevated relative to the general population. Indeed, a retrospective study of insurance claims data by investigators at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, concluded that the VTE rate in RA patients was 0.61 events/100 patient-years, 120% greater than in a matched patient population without RA. After fully adjusting for comorbid conditions and demographics, the relative risk increase associated with RA dropped to 40%, still significantly higher than in controls (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2013 Oct;65[10]:1600-7).
Similarly, Canadian investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 25 studies with VTE data in patients with RA, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, systemic sclerosis, or inflammatory myositis. This meta-analysis included 10 studies of more than 5.2 million RA patients and nearly 900,000 controls. The conclusion: each of these rheumatic diseases was associated with a VTE rate more than three times higher than in the general population (Arthritis Res Ther. 2014 Sep 25;16[5]:435).
“Patients with RA are at higher risk for VTE than those without RA. It’s unfortunate, and it’s certainly something I don’t think many of us have thought much about before. It’s something we don’t often get to see and something we don’t like to think about,” the rheumatologist observed.
Dr. Genovese admitted to a degree of personal frustration with the current tunnel vision focus on VTEs in JAK inhibitor trials. At the 2017 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology he presented the results of the phase 3 SELECT-BEYOND study in which 499 RA patients who had previously failed to respond or were intolerant to biologic therapy were randomized to once daily upadacitinib at 15 or 30 mg or placebo on top of background methotrexate. At week 12, the ACR 20 response rate was 65% for upadacitinib at 15 mg, 56% at 30 mg, and 28% in placebo-treated controls.
“That’s almost a 40% placebo-adjusted response rate. In fact, it’s the highest response I’ve ever seen in a biologic inadequate-responder population. This really looked pretty good, but I don’t think anyone ever took notice. Why not? Because we were all worried about VTE,” he said.
There were in fact a handful of VTEs in upadacitinib-treated patients, Dr. Genovese was quick to note. But he was more impressed by the week 12 ACR 20 responses in patients who had previously failed on three or more biologics: 71% with upadacitinib at 15 mg and 50% at 30 mg, compared with 23% in controls. Moreover, among patients with a baseline history of failure to respond to anti–interleukin-6 therapy, the week 12 ACR 20 rate was 56% with upadacitinib at 15 mg and 58% at 30 mg, versus 20% in controls.
“This looks like a pretty effective drug for patients who’ve failed everything else in our practice,” he commented.
Dr. Genovese reminded his audience that the rheumatology community has a history of overreacting to safety signals in the early days after introduction of new therapies. Examples: tuberculosis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, lymphoma with abatacept (Orencia), lymphoma with anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, and cardiovascular events with anti–interleukin-6 inhibition.
“PML [progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy] is a breathtaking side effect with rituximab [Rituxan], but we’ve gotten over that. We recognize that it’s a potential problem, but we still prescribe rituximab,” the rheumatologist noted. “We’re probably going to need to address the issue of which of our patients are potentially at higher risk for VTE, and maybe we avoid this class in those patients. Like we now do as we look at patients we think are at increased risk for infection, or multiple sclerosis, or TB, we may also need to think of VTE risk.”
But , he argued. There is a pressing unmet need for new therapies for RA with novel mechanisms of action. Only about one-half of patients on contemporary biologic therapies are still on that agent 5 years after initiating therapy.
“Virtually all our patients are partial responders. Everybody gets some benefit. But true remission is achieved by only a minority,” Dr. Genovese said. “The gap between where we are and where we want to be is actually much greater than we often perceive.”
He reported having financial relationships with AbbVie, which is developing upadacitinib, and more than a dozen other medical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – Rheumatologists, regulatory agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry all have gone off the deep end in their fretting over what appears to be a low rate of venous thromboembolic events in the major randomized trials of the oral Janus kinase inhibitors for RA, Mark C. Genovese, MD, asserted at the 2018 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“The reality is all of our drugs pose potential risks. Unfortunately, I think that at least for the moment, the field has turned all attention in one direction: VTE [venous thromboembolic] events. I suspect there’s some truth [to the possible associated risk]. Certainly we are seeing these events. The question is, how overdone is this?” according to Dr. Genovese, professor of medicine and cochief of the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.
“I think the upadacitinib data has been entirely overshadowed by concerns about VTEs,” he said. “In the last year, we saw three significant phase 3 studies on upadacitinib arrive in the rheumatology community, and I think the only thing we talked about was VTEs.”
All parties interested in developing Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for the treatment of RA began to freak out about a possible increase in VTEs when in April 2017 the Food and Drug Administration turned down Eli Lilly and Incyte’s initial application for marketing approval of the JAK inhibitor baricitinib. Among the problems the agency cited was evidence of potential thrombotic risk.
The VTE rate in baricitinib clinical trials up to 48 weeks in duration was 0.53 events/100 patient-years, with no significant difference in risk between the2-mg and 4-mg doses. This appears to be a class effect for the oral JAK inhibitors, as low rates of VTE, albeit numerically higher than in placebo-treated controls, have also been recorded in the RA development programs for tofacitinib (Xeljanz) as well as the investigational agents filgotinib and upadacitinib, the rheumatologist noted.
This begs the question of whether these VTE rates are significantly higher than background rates in patients with RA or other rheumatologic diseases, which are known to be elevated relative to the general population. Indeed, a retrospective study of insurance claims data by investigators at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, concluded that the VTE rate in RA patients was 0.61 events/100 patient-years, 120% greater than in a matched patient population without RA. After fully adjusting for comorbid conditions and demographics, the relative risk increase associated with RA dropped to 40%, still significantly higher than in controls (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2013 Oct;65[10]:1600-7).
Similarly, Canadian investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 25 studies with VTE data in patients with RA, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, systemic sclerosis, or inflammatory myositis. This meta-analysis included 10 studies of more than 5.2 million RA patients and nearly 900,000 controls. The conclusion: each of these rheumatic diseases was associated with a VTE rate more than three times higher than in the general population (Arthritis Res Ther. 2014 Sep 25;16[5]:435).
“Patients with RA are at higher risk for VTE than those without RA. It’s unfortunate, and it’s certainly something I don’t think many of us have thought much about before. It’s something we don’t often get to see and something we don’t like to think about,” the rheumatologist observed.
Dr. Genovese admitted to a degree of personal frustration with the current tunnel vision focus on VTEs in JAK inhibitor trials. At the 2017 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology he presented the results of the phase 3 SELECT-BEYOND study in which 499 RA patients who had previously failed to respond or were intolerant to biologic therapy were randomized to once daily upadacitinib at 15 or 30 mg or placebo on top of background methotrexate. At week 12, the ACR 20 response rate was 65% for upadacitinib at 15 mg, 56% at 30 mg, and 28% in placebo-treated controls.
“That’s almost a 40% placebo-adjusted response rate. In fact, it’s the highest response I’ve ever seen in a biologic inadequate-responder population. This really looked pretty good, but I don’t think anyone ever took notice. Why not? Because we were all worried about VTE,” he said.
There were in fact a handful of VTEs in upadacitinib-treated patients, Dr. Genovese was quick to note. But he was more impressed by the week 12 ACR 20 responses in patients who had previously failed on three or more biologics: 71% with upadacitinib at 15 mg and 50% at 30 mg, compared with 23% in controls. Moreover, among patients with a baseline history of failure to respond to anti–interleukin-6 therapy, the week 12 ACR 20 rate was 56% with upadacitinib at 15 mg and 58% at 30 mg, versus 20% in controls.
“This looks like a pretty effective drug for patients who’ve failed everything else in our practice,” he commented.
Dr. Genovese reminded his audience that the rheumatology community has a history of overreacting to safety signals in the early days after introduction of new therapies. Examples: tuberculosis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, lymphoma with abatacept (Orencia), lymphoma with anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, and cardiovascular events with anti–interleukin-6 inhibition.
“PML [progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy] is a breathtaking side effect with rituximab [Rituxan], but we’ve gotten over that. We recognize that it’s a potential problem, but we still prescribe rituximab,” the rheumatologist noted. “We’re probably going to need to address the issue of which of our patients are potentially at higher risk for VTE, and maybe we avoid this class in those patients. Like we now do as we look at patients we think are at increased risk for infection, or multiple sclerosis, or TB, we may also need to think of VTE risk.”
But , he argued. There is a pressing unmet need for new therapies for RA with novel mechanisms of action. Only about one-half of patients on contemporary biologic therapies are still on that agent 5 years after initiating therapy.
“Virtually all our patients are partial responders. Everybody gets some benefit. But true remission is achieved by only a minority,” Dr. Genovese said. “The gap between where we are and where we want to be is actually much greater than we often perceive.”
He reported having financial relationships with AbbVie, which is developing upadacitinib, and more than a dozen other medical companies.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM RWCS 2018
EMS stroke field triage improves outcomes
LOS ANGELES – An emergency medical services protocol to identify large vessel occlusions and deliver patients to a comprehensive stroke center if it is within 30 minutes of travel time reduced the time to recanalization when compared against a separate protocol that optimized transfer of such patients from primary to comprehensive stroke centers.
The findings, which come from a sequential study conducted in an urban Rhode Island region, offer evidence to resolve the controversy over whether field triage in emergency medical services (EMS) units will improve outcomes, because field stroke severity scores won’t always be accurate, and longer travel to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) could delay treatment to a patient who doesn’t need thrombectomy.
The region where the study was carried out has one CSC and eight primary stroke centers (PSCs). The large vessel occlusions transfer protocol instructed PSCs to contact the CSC when a patient scored 4 or 5 on the Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS), followed by CT and CT angiography. They then shared the resulting images with the CSC, which could make a decision whether to transfer the patient.
The field-based protocol relied on a LAMS score assessment by EMS personnel. Patients scoring 4 or 5 would then be delivered to the CSC if it was within 30 minutes from their current location. Patients scoring less than 4 would be brought to the nearest facility. In cases when the field LAMS score was 4 or greater and the nearest CSC was more than 30 miles away, EMS personnel were instructed to travel to the closest PSC, but immediately send word of an inbound patient that might need a transfer to a CSC. In those cases, the PSC’s goal was to get images to the CSC for review within 45 minutes. The protocol was executed out to 24 hours after the patient was last known well.
Even in patients who were closer to a PSC than a CSC, process outcomes were better with the field triage protocol. “Despite 8 additional minutes of transport time, IV TPA was given 17 minutes earlier, and recanalization occurred almost an hour earlier,” said Dr. McTaggart. “That would indicate that perhaps even a 30-minute window is too conservative of a protocol, because the number needed to treat for mechanical thrombectomy is 2 or 3, so you have this tremendously powerful treatment effect for these patients. If you can get it to them an hour earlier, it’s a no-brainer to me that they need to go to the right place the first time,” he said.
Instituting the changes was no picnic. Dr. McTaggart spent thousands of hours working with EMS personnel and emergency department physicians at PSCs. “It’s a lot of work, but the downstream gains are huge, not only from a disability standpoint for patients but for the economics of the health care system. We’re potentially saving patients from disability health care costs,” he said.
The study population included consecutive stroke patients in the region whose first contact was with EMS personnel during three time periods: before either change was made: (pre PSC-CSC transfer optimization, pre field triage, July 2015 to January 2016), after PSC optimization but only voluntary field triage (January 2016 to January 2017), and when both PSC optimization and field triage were mandatory (January 2017 to January 2018).
The patients had an anterior large vessel occlusion and mild to moderate early ischemic change. Outcomes included time from hospital arrival (PSC or CSC) to alteplase treatment, arterial puncture, and recanalization. Clinical measures included favorable outcomes (modified Rankin scale score 0-2) at 90 days, or discharge with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 4 or less, in cases where 90-day follow-up did not occur.
A total of 38 patients were seen before any change, 100 after PSC optimization, and 94 after both PSC optimization and field triage were implemented. A Google Maps analysis showed that the median additional time required to travel to a CSC instead of a PSC was 8 minutes (interquartile range 4-12).
The time to first use of IV alteplase dropped from 54 minutes before any change to 49 minutes after PSC optimization, and 36 minutes after both PSC optimization and field triage. Similar drops were seen in time to arterial puncture (105 minutes, 101 minutes, 88 minutes) and time to recanalization (156 minutes, 132 minutes, 116 minutes). These differences did not reach statistical significance.
The clinical outcomes also became more favorable: 58% had a favorable outcome at 90 days with both protocols in place, compared with 51% with only PSC optimization and 31% before any changes (P = .049 for 31% to 58% comparison).
The researchers conducted a subanalysis of 150 patients for whom the PSC was closest. Of these, 94 went to a CSC and 56 went to a PSC. The elapsed time between EMS leaving the scene with the patient aboard and IV TPA treatment was an average of 51 minutes in patients taken to the CSC, compared with 68 minutes in patients taken to PSCs (P = .012). The time to arterial puncture was also shorter (98 minutes versus 155 minutes; P less than .001), as was time to recanalization (131 minutes versus 174 minutes; P less than .001).
CSC patients were more likely to have a favorable outcome (65% versus 42%; P = .01).
The study received no external funding. Dr. McTaggart reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Jayaraman M et al. ISC 2018 Abstract 95 (Stroke. 2018 Jan;49[Suppl 1]:A95)
LOS ANGELES – An emergency medical services protocol to identify large vessel occlusions and deliver patients to a comprehensive stroke center if it is within 30 minutes of travel time reduced the time to recanalization when compared against a separate protocol that optimized transfer of such patients from primary to comprehensive stroke centers.
The findings, which come from a sequential study conducted in an urban Rhode Island region, offer evidence to resolve the controversy over whether field triage in emergency medical services (EMS) units will improve outcomes, because field stroke severity scores won’t always be accurate, and longer travel to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) could delay treatment to a patient who doesn’t need thrombectomy.
The region where the study was carried out has one CSC and eight primary stroke centers (PSCs). The large vessel occlusions transfer protocol instructed PSCs to contact the CSC when a patient scored 4 or 5 on the Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS), followed by CT and CT angiography. They then shared the resulting images with the CSC, which could make a decision whether to transfer the patient.
The field-based protocol relied on a LAMS score assessment by EMS personnel. Patients scoring 4 or 5 would then be delivered to the CSC if it was within 30 minutes from their current location. Patients scoring less than 4 would be brought to the nearest facility. In cases when the field LAMS score was 4 or greater and the nearest CSC was more than 30 miles away, EMS personnel were instructed to travel to the closest PSC, but immediately send word of an inbound patient that might need a transfer to a CSC. In those cases, the PSC’s goal was to get images to the CSC for review within 45 minutes. The protocol was executed out to 24 hours after the patient was last known well.
Even in patients who were closer to a PSC than a CSC, process outcomes were better with the field triage protocol. “Despite 8 additional minutes of transport time, IV TPA was given 17 minutes earlier, and recanalization occurred almost an hour earlier,” said Dr. McTaggart. “That would indicate that perhaps even a 30-minute window is too conservative of a protocol, because the number needed to treat for mechanical thrombectomy is 2 or 3, so you have this tremendously powerful treatment effect for these patients. If you can get it to them an hour earlier, it’s a no-brainer to me that they need to go to the right place the first time,” he said.
Instituting the changes was no picnic. Dr. McTaggart spent thousands of hours working with EMS personnel and emergency department physicians at PSCs. “It’s a lot of work, but the downstream gains are huge, not only from a disability standpoint for patients but for the economics of the health care system. We’re potentially saving patients from disability health care costs,” he said.
The study population included consecutive stroke patients in the region whose first contact was with EMS personnel during three time periods: before either change was made: (pre PSC-CSC transfer optimization, pre field triage, July 2015 to January 2016), after PSC optimization but only voluntary field triage (January 2016 to January 2017), and when both PSC optimization and field triage were mandatory (January 2017 to January 2018).
The patients had an anterior large vessel occlusion and mild to moderate early ischemic change. Outcomes included time from hospital arrival (PSC or CSC) to alteplase treatment, arterial puncture, and recanalization. Clinical measures included favorable outcomes (modified Rankin scale score 0-2) at 90 days, or discharge with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 4 or less, in cases where 90-day follow-up did not occur.
A total of 38 patients were seen before any change, 100 after PSC optimization, and 94 after both PSC optimization and field triage were implemented. A Google Maps analysis showed that the median additional time required to travel to a CSC instead of a PSC was 8 minutes (interquartile range 4-12).
The time to first use of IV alteplase dropped from 54 minutes before any change to 49 minutes after PSC optimization, and 36 minutes after both PSC optimization and field triage. Similar drops were seen in time to arterial puncture (105 minutes, 101 minutes, 88 minutes) and time to recanalization (156 minutes, 132 minutes, 116 minutes). These differences did not reach statistical significance.
The clinical outcomes also became more favorable: 58% had a favorable outcome at 90 days with both protocols in place, compared with 51% with only PSC optimization and 31% before any changes (P = .049 for 31% to 58% comparison).
The researchers conducted a subanalysis of 150 patients for whom the PSC was closest. Of these, 94 went to a CSC and 56 went to a PSC. The elapsed time between EMS leaving the scene with the patient aboard and IV TPA treatment was an average of 51 minutes in patients taken to the CSC, compared with 68 minutes in patients taken to PSCs (P = .012). The time to arterial puncture was also shorter (98 minutes versus 155 minutes; P less than .001), as was time to recanalization (131 minutes versus 174 minutes; P less than .001).
CSC patients were more likely to have a favorable outcome (65% versus 42%; P = .01).
The study received no external funding. Dr. McTaggart reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Jayaraman M et al. ISC 2018 Abstract 95 (Stroke. 2018 Jan;49[Suppl 1]:A95)
LOS ANGELES – An emergency medical services protocol to identify large vessel occlusions and deliver patients to a comprehensive stroke center if it is within 30 minutes of travel time reduced the time to recanalization when compared against a separate protocol that optimized transfer of such patients from primary to comprehensive stroke centers.
The findings, which come from a sequential study conducted in an urban Rhode Island region, offer evidence to resolve the controversy over whether field triage in emergency medical services (EMS) units will improve outcomes, because field stroke severity scores won’t always be accurate, and longer travel to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) could delay treatment to a patient who doesn’t need thrombectomy.
The region where the study was carried out has one CSC and eight primary stroke centers (PSCs). The large vessel occlusions transfer protocol instructed PSCs to contact the CSC when a patient scored 4 or 5 on the Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS), followed by CT and CT angiography. They then shared the resulting images with the CSC, which could make a decision whether to transfer the patient.
The field-based protocol relied on a LAMS score assessment by EMS personnel. Patients scoring 4 or 5 would then be delivered to the CSC if it was within 30 minutes from their current location. Patients scoring less than 4 would be brought to the nearest facility. In cases when the field LAMS score was 4 or greater and the nearest CSC was more than 30 miles away, EMS personnel were instructed to travel to the closest PSC, but immediately send word of an inbound patient that might need a transfer to a CSC. In those cases, the PSC’s goal was to get images to the CSC for review within 45 minutes. The protocol was executed out to 24 hours after the patient was last known well.
Even in patients who were closer to a PSC than a CSC, process outcomes were better with the field triage protocol. “Despite 8 additional minutes of transport time, IV TPA was given 17 minutes earlier, and recanalization occurred almost an hour earlier,” said Dr. McTaggart. “That would indicate that perhaps even a 30-minute window is too conservative of a protocol, because the number needed to treat for mechanical thrombectomy is 2 or 3, so you have this tremendously powerful treatment effect for these patients. If you can get it to them an hour earlier, it’s a no-brainer to me that they need to go to the right place the first time,” he said.
Instituting the changes was no picnic. Dr. McTaggart spent thousands of hours working with EMS personnel and emergency department physicians at PSCs. “It’s a lot of work, but the downstream gains are huge, not only from a disability standpoint for patients but for the economics of the health care system. We’re potentially saving patients from disability health care costs,” he said.
The study population included consecutive stroke patients in the region whose first contact was with EMS personnel during three time periods: before either change was made: (pre PSC-CSC transfer optimization, pre field triage, July 2015 to January 2016), after PSC optimization but only voluntary field triage (January 2016 to January 2017), and when both PSC optimization and field triage were mandatory (January 2017 to January 2018).
The patients had an anterior large vessel occlusion and mild to moderate early ischemic change. Outcomes included time from hospital arrival (PSC or CSC) to alteplase treatment, arterial puncture, and recanalization. Clinical measures included favorable outcomes (modified Rankin scale score 0-2) at 90 days, or discharge with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 4 or less, in cases where 90-day follow-up did not occur.
A total of 38 patients were seen before any change, 100 after PSC optimization, and 94 after both PSC optimization and field triage were implemented. A Google Maps analysis showed that the median additional time required to travel to a CSC instead of a PSC was 8 minutes (interquartile range 4-12).
The time to first use of IV alteplase dropped from 54 minutes before any change to 49 minutes after PSC optimization, and 36 minutes after both PSC optimization and field triage. Similar drops were seen in time to arterial puncture (105 minutes, 101 minutes, 88 minutes) and time to recanalization (156 minutes, 132 minutes, 116 minutes). These differences did not reach statistical significance.
The clinical outcomes also became more favorable: 58% had a favorable outcome at 90 days with both protocols in place, compared with 51% with only PSC optimization and 31% before any changes (P = .049 for 31% to 58% comparison).
The researchers conducted a subanalysis of 150 patients for whom the PSC was closest. Of these, 94 went to a CSC and 56 went to a PSC. The elapsed time between EMS leaving the scene with the patient aboard and IV TPA treatment was an average of 51 minutes in patients taken to the CSC, compared with 68 minutes in patients taken to PSCs (P = .012). The time to arterial puncture was also shorter (98 minutes versus 155 minutes; P less than .001), as was time to recanalization (131 minutes versus 174 minutes; P less than .001).
CSC patients were more likely to have a favorable outcome (65% versus 42%; P = .01).
The study received no external funding. Dr. McTaggart reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Jayaraman M et al. ISC 2018 Abstract 95 (Stroke. 2018 Jan;49[Suppl 1]:A95)
REPORTING FROM ISC 2018
Key clinical point: EMS field triage may improve stroke patient management.
Major finding: Even when a primary stroke center was closer, the time to recanalization was shortened by 43 minutes when patients were taken to a comprehensive stroke center instead.
Data source: Prospective study of 232 consecutive stroke patients.
Disclosures: The study received no external funding. Dr. McTaggart reported having no financial disclosures.
Source: Jayaraman M et al. ISC 2018 Abstract 95 (Stroke. 2018 Jan;49[Suppl 1]:A95)
Imaging methods for stroke thrombectomy eligibility yield similar results
LOS ANGELES – The benefits of mechanical thrombectomy observed in the DAWN trial for patients with acute ischemic stroke and a mismatch between core imaging and clinical presentation out to 24 hours appear to apply regardless of whether their eligibility is determined by CT perfusion or diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, according to a subanalysis of the trial data.
Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) is considered the gold standard, but it is not as widely available as CT perfusion (CTP) and previous studies have shown that MR is associated with longer times between stroke onset and treatment randomization. “Though MR was originally preferred in DAWN, it was pretty clear that CT perfusion was going to need to be employed in the trial as well,” Cathy Sila, MD, said during her presentation of the results of the subanalysis at the International Stroke Conference 2018, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
The research sought to determine if the two imaging methods perform similarly. CTP is more readily available, but it has some issues. In patients with severe heart failure, a severe proximal stenosis, or a contralateral severe stenosis, the technique may struggle to accurately image the core infarct, which has led some to wonder if the outcomes would be as good using CTP as selection criteria. “In our institution, we’ve had this conversation very frequently,” said Dr. Sila, who is a vascular neurologist and the director of the University Hospitals Systems stroke program in Cleveland.
To be eligible for DAWN, the core infarct had to correspond to at least a 30% decrease in regional blood flow in the CTP map, or an apparent diffusion coefficient of less than 620 on DW-MRI.
The researchers included all 206 patients in the DAWN study (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:11-21), separating them into DW-MRI or CTP groups based on which imaging method was used to randomize them during the trial. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the baseline characteristics between the two imaging groups.
The 26 sites participating in DAWN had clear differences in their preferences for imaging techniques; 19 exclusively used CTP, 4 used only DW-MRI, and 3 sites used a combination of both imaging methods.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the measured clinical outcomes, including neurologic deterioration in hospital (22.8% with CTP vs. 15.7% with DW-MRII, P = .286), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (4.1% with CTP vs. 4.8% with DW-MRI, P = 1.000), or death related to stroke (19.5% with CTP vs. 13.3% with DW-MRI, P = .263). Outcomes at 90 days proved to be similar between CTP and DW-MRI for achieving functional independence (29.3% vs. 34.9%, respectively; P = .445) and utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale scores (4.2 vs. 4.9, respectively; P = .172).
Multivariate analyses showed that 90-day functional independence was predicted by thrombectomy treatment, age, blood glucose level, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, and core lab ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score), but not the method of imaging.
“The efficacy and safety of mechanical thrombectomy for patients meeting those clinical mismatch criteria at 6-24 hours were comparable whether the small core infarcts were measured by diffusion imaging or cerebral blood flow imaging. I believe that future clinical trials aiming to extend the eligibility outside of this prespecified population should include both imaging modalities to determine whether these results are generalizable,” Dr. Sila said.
The DAWN study was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Sila has reported receiving honoraria from Medtronic.
SOURCE: Sila C et al. ISC 2018, abstract LB11.
LOS ANGELES – The benefits of mechanical thrombectomy observed in the DAWN trial for patients with acute ischemic stroke and a mismatch between core imaging and clinical presentation out to 24 hours appear to apply regardless of whether their eligibility is determined by CT perfusion or diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, according to a subanalysis of the trial data.
Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) is considered the gold standard, but it is not as widely available as CT perfusion (CTP) and previous studies have shown that MR is associated with longer times between stroke onset and treatment randomization. “Though MR was originally preferred in DAWN, it was pretty clear that CT perfusion was going to need to be employed in the trial as well,” Cathy Sila, MD, said during her presentation of the results of the subanalysis at the International Stroke Conference 2018, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
The research sought to determine if the two imaging methods perform similarly. CTP is more readily available, but it has some issues. In patients with severe heart failure, a severe proximal stenosis, or a contralateral severe stenosis, the technique may struggle to accurately image the core infarct, which has led some to wonder if the outcomes would be as good using CTP as selection criteria. “In our institution, we’ve had this conversation very frequently,” said Dr. Sila, who is a vascular neurologist and the director of the University Hospitals Systems stroke program in Cleveland.
To be eligible for DAWN, the core infarct had to correspond to at least a 30% decrease in regional blood flow in the CTP map, or an apparent diffusion coefficient of less than 620 on DW-MRI.
The researchers included all 206 patients in the DAWN study (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:11-21), separating them into DW-MRI or CTP groups based on which imaging method was used to randomize them during the trial. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the baseline characteristics between the two imaging groups.
The 26 sites participating in DAWN had clear differences in their preferences for imaging techniques; 19 exclusively used CTP, 4 used only DW-MRI, and 3 sites used a combination of both imaging methods.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the measured clinical outcomes, including neurologic deterioration in hospital (22.8% with CTP vs. 15.7% with DW-MRII, P = .286), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (4.1% with CTP vs. 4.8% with DW-MRI, P = 1.000), or death related to stroke (19.5% with CTP vs. 13.3% with DW-MRI, P = .263). Outcomes at 90 days proved to be similar between CTP and DW-MRI for achieving functional independence (29.3% vs. 34.9%, respectively; P = .445) and utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale scores (4.2 vs. 4.9, respectively; P = .172).
Multivariate analyses showed that 90-day functional independence was predicted by thrombectomy treatment, age, blood glucose level, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, and core lab ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score), but not the method of imaging.
“The efficacy and safety of mechanical thrombectomy for patients meeting those clinical mismatch criteria at 6-24 hours were comparable whether the small core infarcts were measured by diffusion imaging or cerebral blood flow imaging. I believe that future clinical trials aiming to extend the eligibility outside of this prespecified population should include both imaging modalities to determine whether these results are generalizable,” Dr. Sila said.
The DAWN study was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Sila has reported receiving honoraria from Medtronic.
SOURCE: Sila C et al. ISC 2018, abstract LB11.
LOS ANGELES – The benefits of mechanical thrombectomy observed in the DAWN trial for patients with acute ischemic stroke and a mismatch between core imaging and clinical presentation out to 24 hours appear to apply regardless of whether their eligibility is determined by CT perfusion or diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, according to a subanalysis of the trial data.
Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) is considered the gold standard, but it is not as widely available as CT perfusion (CTP) and previous studies have shown that MR is associated with longer times between stroke onset and treatment randomization. “Though MR was originally preferred in DAWN, it was pretty clear that CT perfusion was going to need to be employed in the trial as well,” Cathy Sila, MD, said during her presentation of the results of the subanalysis at the International Stroke Conference 2018, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
The research sought to determine if the two imaging methods perform similarly. CTP is more readily available, but it has some issues. In patients with severe heart failure, a severe proximal stenosis, or a contralateral severe stenosis, the technique may struggle to accurately image the core infarct, which has led some to wonder if the outcomes would be as good using CTP as selection criteria. “In our institution, we’ve had this conversation very frequently,” said Dr. Sila, who is a vascular neurologist and the director of the University Hospitals Systems stroke program in Cleveland.
To be eligible for DAWN, the core infarct had to correspond to at least a 30% decrease in regional blood flow in the CTP map, or an apparent diffusion coefficient of less than 620 on DW-MRI.
The researchers included all 206 patients in the DAWN study (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:11-21), separating them into DW-MRI or CTP groups based on which imaging method was used to randomize them during the trial. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the baseline characteristics between the two imaging groups.
The 26 sites participating in DAWN had clear differences in their preferences for imaging techniques; 19 exclusively used CTP, 4 used only DW-MRI, and 3 sites used a combination of both imaging methods.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the measured clinical outcomes, including neurologic deterioration in hospital (22.8% with CTP vs. 15.7% with DW-MRII, P = .286), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (4.1% with CTP vs. 4.8% with DW-MRI, P = 1.000), or death related to stroke (19.5% with CTP vs. 13.3% with DW-MRI, P = .263). Outcomes at 90 days proved to be similar between CTP and DW-MRI for achieving functional independence (29.3% vs. 34.9%, respectively; P = .445) and utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale scores (4.2 vs. 4.9, respectively; P = .172).
Multivariate analyses showed that 90-day functional independence was predicted by thrombectomy treatment, age, blood glucose level, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, and core lab ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score), but not the method of imaging.
“The efficacy and safety of mechanical thrombectomy for patients meeting those clinical mismatch criteria at 6-24 hours were comparable whether the small core infarcts were measured by diffusion imaging or cerebral blood flow imaging. I believe that future clinical trials aiming to extend the eligibility outside of this prespecified population should include both imaging modalities to determine whether these results are generalizable,” Dr. Sila said.
The DAWN study was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Sila has reported receiving honoraria from Medtronic.
SOURCE: Sila C et al. ISC 2018, abstract LB11.
REPORTING FROM ISC 2018
Key clinical point: DW-MRI is the gold standard for imaging, but CTP is more widely available.
Major finding: Rates of neurologic deterioration in hospital, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and death related to stroke were similar regardless of whether CT or MR imaging was used to assess patients’ infarcts.
Data source: A subanalysis of the DAWN randomized, controlled trial (n = 206).
Disclosures: The DAWN study was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Sila reported receiving honoraria from Medtronic.
Source: Sila C et al. ISC 2018, abstract LB11.
VIDEO: Rivaroxaban plus aspirin halves ischemic strokes
LOS ANGELES – Combined treatment with a low dosage of the anticoagulant rivaroxaban plus aspirin cut the incidence of ischemic strokes nearly in half, compared with aspirin alone, in a multicenter, randomized trial of more than 27,000 patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.
This dramatic reduction in ischemic strokes as well as in all-cause strokes by adding low-dose rivaroxaban(Xarelto) occurred without any significant increase in hemorrhagic strokes but with a small increase in total major bleeding events, such as gastrointestinal bleeds, Mike Sharma, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
“There was a consistent effect across all strata of stroke risk. For patients who had a prior stroke, it’s pretty clear to use rivaroxaban plus aspirin because it had a big benefit” with no increase in intracranial hemorrhages, Dr. Sharma said in a video interview.
“We think these results will fundamentally change how we approach stroke prevention,” added Dr. Sharma, a stroke neurologist in the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.
The results he reported came from a secondary analysis of data collected in the COMPASS (Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease) trial, which enrolled 27,395 patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease at 602 centers in 33 countries.
The primary outcome of the trial, reported in 2017, was the combined rate of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke during an average 23 months of follow-up, which occurred in 4.1% of patients treated with 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin once daily, 4.9% of patients who received 5.0 mg rivaroxaban twice daily, and 5.4% in patients who received 100 mg aspirin daily, a statistically significant 24% relative risk reduction in the combined treatment group, compared with aspirin only. The rivaroxaban only–treated patients did not significantly differ from the control patients who received only aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). The main results showed a 1.2% increase in the rate of major bleeds in patients treated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, compared with aspirin only, but the rate of nonfatal symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages was identical in the two treatment groups.
The new results Dr. Sharma reported at the conference focused on various measures of stroke. The rate of all strokes was 42% lower among the patients treated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, compared with the aspirin alone patients, and ischemic strokes were 49% lower with the dual therapy, compared with aspirin only. Both differences were statistically significant. In contrast, the rivaroxaban alone regimen did not significantly reduce all-cause strokes. It did significantly reduce ischemic strokes, compared with aspirin only, but it also significantly increased hemorrhagic strokes, compared with aspirin only, an adverse effect not caused by the combination of low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin.
Rivaroxaban plus aspirin surpassed aspirin alone for preventing both mild and severe strokes and for preventing strokes both in patients with a history of a prior stroke and in those who never had a prior stroke. The stroke reduction produced by rivaroxaban plus aspirin was greatest in the highest risk patients – those with a prior stroke. On the combined regimen, these patients had an average stroke incidence of 0.7% per year, compared with an annual 3.4% rate among the patients on aspirin only, a 2.7% absolute reduction by using rivaroxaban plus aspirin that translated into a number needed to treat of 37 patients with a history of stroke to prevent one new stroke per year.
The 2017 report of the main COMPASS results included a net clinical benefit analysis that factored together the primary endpoint events and major bleeding events. The net rate of all these events was 4.7% with rivaroxaban plus aspirin and 5.9% with aspirin only, a statistically significant 20% relative risk reduction for all adverse outcomes with dual therapy. This net clinical benefit suggests that adding rivaroxaban has a cost-effective benefit. Assessment of rivaroxaban’s cost benefit in COMPASS is in process, Dr. Sharma said.
Rivaroxaban received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval in 2011 for preventing deep vein thrombosis and preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation at dosages higher than what was used in COMPASS. The approved rivaroxaban dosage for preventing deep vein thrombosis is 10 mg/day, and 20 mg/day for preventing stroke in atrial fibrillation patients. The 2.5-mg formulation of rivaroxaban that was given twice daily had the best safety and efficacy in COMPASS, but it is not available now on the U.S. market, although it is available in Europe. Johnson & Johnson, which markets rivaroxaban globally with Bayer, submitted an application to the FDA in December for marketing approval of the 2.5-mg formulation in twice-daily dosing for use as in the COMPASS trial.
COMPASS was sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets rivaroxaban in collaboration with Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Sharma has been a consultant or adviser to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Daiichi-Sankyo.
SOURCE: Sharma M et al. ISC 2018, Abstract LB7.
LOS ANGELES – Combined treatment with a low dosage of the anticoagulant rivaroxaban plus aspirin cut the incidence of ischemic strokes nearly in half, compared with aspirin alone, in a multicenter, randomized trial of more than 27,000 patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.
This dramatic reduction in ischemic strokes as well as in all-cause strokes by adding low-dose rivaroxaban(Xarelto) occurred without any significant increase in hemorrhagic strokes but with a small increase in total major bleeding events, such as gastrointestinal bleeds, Mike Sharma, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
“There was a consistent effect across all strata of stroke risk. For patients who had a prior stroke, it’s pretty clear to use rivaroxaban plus aspirin because it had a big benefit” with no increase in intracranial hemorrhages, Dr. Sharma said in a video interview.
“We think these results will fundamentally change how we approach stroke prevention,” added Dr. Sharma, a stroke neurologist in the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.
The results he reported came from a secondary analysis of data collected in the COMPASS (Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease) trial, which enrolled 27,395 patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease at 602 centers in 33 countries.
The primary outcome of the trial, reported in 2017, was the combined rate of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke during an average 23 months of follow-up, which occurred in 4.1% of patients treated with 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin once daily, 4.9% of patients who received 5.0 mg rivaroxaban twice daily, and 5.4% in patients who received 100 mg aspirin daily, a statistically significant 24% relative risk reduction in the combined treatment group, compared with aspirin only. The rivaroxaban only–treated patients did not significantly differ from the control patients who received only aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). The main results showed a 1.2% increase in the rate of major bleeds in patients treated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, compared with aspirin only, but the rate of nonfatal symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages was identical in the two treatment groups.
The new results Dr. Sharma reported at the conference focused on various measures of stroke. The rate of all strokes was 42% lower among the patients treated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, compared with the aspirin alone patients, and ischemic strokes were 49% lower with the dual therapy, compared with aspirin only. Both differences were statistically significant. In contrast, the rivaroxaban alone regimen did not significantly reduce all-cause strokes. It did significantly reduce ischemic strokes, compared with aspirin only, but it also significantly increased hemorrhagic strokes, compared with aspirin only, an adverse effect not caused by the combination of low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin.
Rivaroxaban plus aspirin surpassed aspirin alone for preventing both mild and severe strokes and for preventing strokes both in patients with a history of a prior stroke and in those who never had a prior stroke. The stroke reduction produced by rivaroxaban plus aspirin was greatest in the highest risk patients – those with a prior stroke. On the combined regimen, these patients had an average stroke incidence of 0.7% per year, compared with an annual 3.4% rate among the patients on aspirin only, a 2.7% absolute reduction by using rivaroxaban plus aspirin that translated into a number needed to treat of 37 patients with a history of stroke to prevent one new stroke per year.
The 2017 report of the main COMPASS results included a net clinical benefit analysis that factored together the primary endpoint events and major bleeding events. The net rate of all these events was 4.7% with rivaroxaban plus aspirin and 5.9% with aspirin only, a statistically significant 20% relative risk reduction for all adverse outcomes with dual therapy. This net clinical benefit suggests that adding rivaroxaban has a cost-effective benefit. Assessment of rivaroxaban’s cost benefit in COMPASS is in process, Dr. Sharma said.
Rivaroxaban received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval in 2011 for preventing deep vein thrombosis and preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation at dosages higher than what was used in COMPASS. The approved rivaroxaban dosage for preventing deep vein thrombosis is 10 mg/day, and 20 mg/day for preventing stroke in atrial fibrillation patients. The 2.5-mg formulation of rivaroxaban that was given twice daily had the best safety and efficacy in COMPASS, but it is not available now on the U.S. market, although it is available in Europe. Johnson & Johnson, which markets rivaroxaban globally with Bayer, submitted an application to the FDA in December for marketing approval of the 2.5-mg formulation in twice-daily dosing for use as in the COMPASS trial.
COMPASS was sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets rivaroxaban in collaboration with Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Sharma has been a consultant or adviser to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Daiichi-Sankyo.
SOURCE: Sharma M et al. ISC 2018, Abstract LB7.
LOS ANGELES – Combined treatment with a low dosage of the anticoagulant rivaroxaban plus aspirin cut the incidence of ischemic strokes nearly in half, compared with aspirin alone, in a multicenter, randomized trial of more than 27,000 patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.
This dramatic reduction in ischemic strokes as well as in all-cause strokes by adding low-dose rivaroxaban(Xarelto) occurred without any significant increase in hemorrhagic strokes but with a small increase in total major bleeding events, such as gastrointestinal bleeds, Mike Sharma, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
“There was a consistent effect across all strata of stroke risk. For patients who had a prior stroke, it’s pretty clear to use rivaroxaban plus aspirin because it had a big benefit” with no increase in intracranial hemorrhages, Dr. Sharma said in a video interview.
“We think these results will fundamentally change how we approach stroke prevention,” added Dr. Sharma, a stroke neurologist in the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.
The results he reported came from a secondary analysis of data collected in the COMPASS (Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease) trial, which enrolled 27,395 patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease at 602 centers in 33 countries.
The primary outcome of the trial, reported in 2017, was the combined rate of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke during an average 23 months of follow-up, which occurred in 4.1% of patients treated with 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin once daily, 4.9% of patients who received 5.0 mg rivaroxaban twice daily, and 5.4% in patients who received 100 mg aspirin daily, a statistically significant 24% relative risk reduction in the combined treatment group, compared with aspirin only. The rivaroxaban only–treated patients did not significantly differ from the control patients who received only aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). The main results showed a 1.2% increase in the rate of major bleeds in patients treated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, compared with aspirin only, but the rate of nonfatal symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages was identical in the two treatment groups.
The new results Dr. Sharma reported at the conference focused on various measures of stroke. The rate of all strokes was 42% lower among the patients treated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, compared with the aspirin alone patients, and ischemic strokes were 49% lower with the dual therapy, compared with aspirin only. Both differences were statistically significant. In contrast, the rivaroxaban alone regimen did not significantly reduce all-cause strokes. It did significantly reduce ischemic strokes, compared with aspirin only, but it also significantly increased hemorrhagic strokes, compared with aspirin only, an adverse effect not caused by the combination of low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin.
Rivaroxaban plus aspirin surpassed aspirin alone for preventing both mild and severe strokes and for preventing strokes both in patients with a history of a prior stroke and in those who never had a prior stroke. The stroke reduction produced by rivaroxaban plus aspirin was greatest in the highest risk patients – those with a prior stroke. On the combined regimen, these patients had an average stroke incidence of 0.7% per year, compared with an annual 3.4% rate among the patients on aspirin only, a 2.7% absolute reduction by using rivaroxaban plus aspirin that translated into a number needed to treat of 37 patients with a history of stroke to prevent one new stroke per year.
The 2017 report of the main COMPASS results included a net clinical benefit analysis that factored together the primary endpoint events and major bleeding events. The net rate of all these events was 4.7% with rivaroxaban plus aspirin and 5.9% with aspirin only, a statistically significant 20% relative risk reduction for all adverse outcomes with dual therapy. This net clinical benefit suggests that adding rivaroxaban has a cost-effective benefit. Assessment of rivaroxaban’s cost benefit in COMPASS is in process, Dr. Sharma said.
Rivaroxaban received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval in 2011 for preventing deep vein thrombosis and preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation at dosages higher than what was used in COMPASS. The approved rivaroxaban dosage for preventing deep vein thrombosis is 10 mg/day, and 20 mg/day for preventing stroke in atrial fibrillation patients. The 2.5-mg formulation of rivaroxaban that was given twice daily had the best safety and efficacy in COMPASS, but it is not available now on the U.S. market, although it is available in Europe. Johnson & Johnson, which markets rivaroxaban globally with Bayer, submitted an application to the FDA in December for marketing approval of the 2.5-mg formulation in twice-daily dosing for use as in the COMPASS trial.
COMPASS was sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets rivaroxaban in collaboration with Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Sharma has been a consultant or adviser to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Daiichi-Sankyo.
SOURCE: Sharma M et al. ISC 2018, Abstract LB7.
REPORTING FROM ISC 2018
Key clinical point: Rivaroxaban plus aspirin cuts strokes in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.
Major finding: Rivaroxaban plus aspirin cut the rate of ischemic strokes by 49%, compared with aspirin only.
Study details: Secondary analysis from the COMPASS trial, a multicenter, randomized trial with 27,395 patients.
Disclosures: COMPASS was sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets rivaroxaban in collaboration with Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Sharma has been a consultant or adviser to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Daiichi-Sankyo.
Source: Sharma M et al. ISC 2018, Abstract LB7.
Ticagrelor may be superior to clopidogrel in poor metabolizers
LOS ANGELES – In patients who had experienced a minor stroke or a transient ischemic attack with a moderate to high risk of stroke, the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin reduced the 90-day incidence of high on-treatment platelet reactivity, according to results from the PRINCE trial.
Although the combination outperformed clopidogrel (Plavix) plus aspirin, ticagrelor (Brilinta) was associated with higher bleeding risk.
The researchers also saw a trend toward a reduction in strokes that did not reach statistical significance, but the trial was halted following an interim analysis showing that the high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HOPR) endpoint, defined as P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) greater than 208, showed a statistically significant difference. “To prove the clinical benefit, we will need a larger sample size,” study first author and presenter Yilong Wang, MD, PhD, of Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, said in an interview at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Previously, the SOCRATES trial found no advantage to treatment with ticagrelor over aspirin, but a prespecified exploratory analysis focusing on Asian patients (Stroke. 2017;48:167-73) found a trend toward reducing vascular events in the ticagrelor group, compared with patients taking aspirin.
In the Platelet Reactivity in Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack (PRINCE) trial, the researchers sought to examine the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor when compared with clopidogrel in 675 Asian patients (mean age 61 years, one-quarter of whom were female) from 26 centers in China and randomized them to ticagrelor plus aspirin (Tica) or clopidogrel plus aspirin (Clop). Within 24 hours of symptom onset, patients received 180 mg ticagrelor or 300 mg clopidogrel plus 100-300 mg aspirin. During days 1-21, they received 90 mg ticagrelor twice per day or 75 mg clopidogrel once per day. Both groups received 100 mg aspirin once per day. From day 21 to day 90, they received 90 mg ticagrelor twice per day or 75 mg clopidogrel once per day, with no aspirin.
At 90 days, the mean PRU value was 175.44 in the Clop group, compared with 69.24 in the Tica group. Overall, 27.7% of the Clop group experienced HOPR in the first 7 days, compared with 3.9% of the Tica group. At 90 days, 29.7% of the Clop group had experienced HOPR, compared with 12.5% of the Tica group (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.51; P less than .001).
Ticagrelor was associated with greater benefit among those with impaired ability to metabolize clopidogrel. Among poor metabolizers, HOPR occurred in 10.5% in the Tica group and 42.4% of the Clop group (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.56; P = .004). A similar favorable effect was seen in intermediate metabolizers in the Tica group (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.49; P less than .001).
The 90-day stroke rate was no different between the Tica and Clop groups (6.3% vs. 8.8%, respectively; P = .20).
Minimal bleeding was higher in the Tica group (19.0% vs. 10.6%; hazard ratio, 1.86; P = .003), as was any bleeding (22.3% vs. 14.2%; HR, 1.65; P = .007). There were three deaths in the Tica group and two in the Clop group.
Dyspnea was the most common cause of drug discontinuation, and occurred in 4.2% of patients taking ticagrelor but none of the patients taking clopidogrel (P = .0001).
The researchers hope to demonstrate the clinical benefits of the combination in the upcoming PRINCE 2 trial. The results will have an important impact because CYP2C19 loss of function alleles are more common in Asian population. “It’s a very big problem for us,” Dr. Wang said.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Institute for Brain, and the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission of Cerebral Vascular Disease. AstraZeneca provided study drugs. Dr. Wang reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Wang Y et al. ISC 2018, abstract LB8
LOS ANGELES – In patients who had experienced a minor stroke or a transient ischemic attack with a moderate to high risk of stroke, the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin reduced the 90-day incidence of high on-treatment platelet reactivity, according to results from the PRINCE trial.
Although the combination outperformed clopidogrel (Plavix) plus aspirin, ticagrelor (Brilinta) was associated with higher bleeding risk.
The researchers also saw a trend toward a reduction in strokes that did not reach statistical significance, but the trial was halted following an interim analysis showing that the high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HOPR) endpoint, defined as P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) greater than 208, showed a statistically significant difference. “To prove the clinical benefit, we will need a larger sample size,” study first author and presenter Yilong Wang, MD, PhD, of Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, said in an interview at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Previously, the SOCRATES trial found no advantage to treatment with ticagrelor over aspirin, but a prespecified exploratory analysis focusing on Asian patients (Stroke. 2017;48:167-73) found a trend toward reducing vascular events in the ticagrelor group, compared with patients taking aspirin.
In the Platelet Reactivity in Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack (PRINCE) trial, the researchers sought to examine the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor when compared with clopidogrel in 675 Asian patients (mean age 61 years, one-quarter of whom were female) from 26 centers in China and randomized them to ticagrelor plus aspirin (Tica) or clopidogrel plus aspirin (Clop). Within 24 hours of symptom onset, patients received 180 mg ticagrelor or 300 mg clopidogrel plus 100-300 mg aspirin. During days 1-21, they received 90 mg ticagrelor twice per day or 75 mg clopidogrel once per day. Both groups received 100 mg aspirin once per day. From day 21 to day 90, they received 90 mg ticagrelor twice per day or 75 mg clopidogrel once per day, with no aspirin.
At 90 days, the mean PRU value was 175.44 in the Clop group, compared with 69.24 in the Tica group. Overall, 27.7% of the Clop group experienced HOPR in the first 7 days, compared with 3.9% of the Tica group. At 90 days, 29.7% of the Clop group had experienced HOPR, compared with 12.5% of the Tica group (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.51; P less than .001).
Ticagrelor was associated with greater benefit among those with impaired ability to metabolize clopidogrel. Among poor metabolizers, HOPR occurred in 10.5% in the Tica group and 42.4% of the Clop group (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.56; P = .004). A similar favorable effect was seen in intermediate metabolizers in the Tica group (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.49; P less than .001).
The 90-day stroke rate was no different between the Tica and Clop groups (6.3% vs. 8.8%, respectively; P = .20).
Minimal bleeding was higher in the Tica group (19.0% vs. 10.6%; hazard ratio, 1.86; P = .003), as was any bleeding (22.3% vs. 14.2%; HR, 1.65; P = .007). There were three deaths in the Tica group and two in the Clop group.
Dyspnea was the most common cause of drug discontinuation, and occurred in 4.2% of patients taking ticagrelor but none of the patients taking clopidogrel (P = .0001).
The researchers hope to demonstrate the clinical benefits of the combination in the upcoming PRINCE 2 trial. The results will have an important impact because CYP2C19 loss of function alleles are more common in Asian population. “It’s a very big problem for us,” Dr. Wang said.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Institute for Brain, and the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission of Cerebral Vascular Disease. AstraZeneca provided study drugs. Dr. Wang reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Wang Y et al. ISC 2018, abstract LB8
LOS ANGELES – In patients who had experienced a minor stroke or a transient ischemic attack with a moderate to high risk of stroke, the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin reduced the 90-day incidence of high on-treatment platelet reactivity, according to results from the PRINCE trial.
Although the combination outperformed clopidogrel (Plavix) plus aspirin, ticagrelor (Brilinta) was associated with higher bleeding risk.
The researchers also saw a trend toward a reduction in strokes that did not reach statistical significance, but the trial was halted following an interim analysis showing that the high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HOPR) endpoint, defined as P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) greater than 208, showed a statistically significant difference. “To prove the clinical benefit, we will need a larger sample size,” study first author and presenter Yilong Wang, MD, PhD, of Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, said in an interview at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Previously, the SOCRATES trial found no advantage to treatment with ticagrelor over aspirin, but a prespecified exploratory analysis focusing on Asian patients (Stroke. 2017;48:167-73) found a trend toward reducing vascular events in the ticagrelor group, compared with patients taking aspirin.
In the Platelet Reactivity in Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack (PRINCE) trial, the researchers sought to examine the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor when compared with clopidogrel in 675 Asian patients (mean age 61 years, one-quarter of whom were female) from 26 centers in China and randomized them to ticagrelor plus aspirin (Tica) or clopidogrel plus aspirin (Clop). Within 24 hours of symptom onset, patients received 180 mg ticagrelor or 300 mg clopidogrel plus 100-300 mg aspirin. During days 1-21, they received 90 mg ticagrelor twice per day or 75 mg clopidogrel once per day. Both groups received 100 mg aspirin once per day. From day 21 to day 90, they received 90 mg ticagrelor twice per day or 75 mg clopidogrel once per day, with no aspirin.
At 90 days, the mean PRU value was 175.44 in the Clop group, compared with 69.24 in the Tica group. Overall, 27.7% of the Clop group experienced HOPR in the first 7 days, compared with 3.9% of the Tica group. At 90 days, 29.7% of the Clop group had experienced HOPR, compared with 12.5% of the Tica group (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.51; P less than .001).
Ticagrelor was associated with greater benefit among those with impaired ability to metabolize clopidogrel. Among poor metabolizers, HOPR occurred in 10.5% in the Tica group and 42.4% of the Clop group (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.56; P = .004). A similar favorable effect was seen in intermediate metabolizers in the Tica group (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.49; P less than .001).
The 90-day stroke rate was no different between the Tica and Clop groups (6.3% vs. 8.8%, respectively; P = .20).
Minimal bleeding was higher in the Tica group (19.0% vs. 10.6%; hazard ratio, 1.86; P = .003), as was any bleeding (22.3% vs. 14.2%; HR, 1.65; P = .007). There were three deaths in the Tica group and two in the Clop group.
Dyspnea was the most common cause of drug discontinuation, and occurred in 4.2% of patients taking ticagrelor but none of the patients taking clopidogrel (P = .0001).
The researchers hope to demonstrate the clinical benefits of the combination in the upcoming PRINCE 2 trial. The results will have an important impact because CYP2C19 loss of function alleles are more common in Asian population. “It’s a very big problem for us,” Dr. Wang said.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Institute for Brain, and the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission of Cerebral Vascular Disease. AstraZeneca provided study drugs. Dr. Wang reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Wang Y et al. ISC 2018, abstract LB8
REPORTING FROM ISC 2018
Key clinical point: Ticagrelor may be a better option than clopidogrel in patients with loss-of-function CYP2C19 alleles.
Major finding: Patients on ticagrelor had a lower 90-day risk of high on-treatment platelet reactivity (OR, 0.33).
Data source: Randomized, open-label trial with blinded assessments (n = 675).
Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Institute for Brain, and the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission of Cerebral Vascular Disease. AstraZeneca provided study drugs. Dr. Wang reported having no financial disclosures.
Source: Wang Y et al. ISC 2018, abstract LB8
Tenecteplase surpasses alteplase for thrombolysing acute ischemic stroke
LOS ANGELES – Thrombolysis with tenecteplase beat alteplase on an acute imaging endpoint in patients with acute ischemic stroke who were on their way to also get thrombectomy in a randomized, multicenter study with 202 patients in Australia and New Zealand.
The results of the trial, called Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase Before Endovascular Therapy for Ischemic Stroke (EXTEND-IA TNK), showed that when the patients underwent their initial angiogram after receiving thrombolysis and before their thrombectomy procedure, the percentage of patients with robust blood flow – a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) score of 2b or 3 or no retrievable thrombus – was 22% in the patients treated with tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg and 10% among those who received alteplase 0.9 mg/kg. After adjustment, the 12% incremental change in robust reperfusion with tenecteplase calculated into a 2.6-fold higher rate of robust reperfusion, statistically significant for both noninferiority and for superiority, Bruce C. Campbell, MBBS, PhD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Tenecteplase is a genetically-modified tissue plasminogen activator with enhanced fibrin specificity that increases the drug’s half life and allows for bolus administration, unlike alteplase, which needs continuous infusion (CNS Drugs. 2015 Oct;29[10]:811-8). Tenecteplase also has a U.S. wholesale price that is about $3,000 cheaper per vial than alteplase, said Dr. Campbell, professor of neurology at the University of Melbourne and head of hyperacute stroke at Royal Melbourne Hospital.
But further data are needed before tenecteplase is ready for routine use, conceded Dr. Campbell, an assessment other experts agreed with. Dr. Campbell cited two studies in progress that are comparing tenecteplase with alteplase in acute ischemic stroke patients not headed for endovascular thrombectomy, as well as a study he is leading that compares the tenecteplase dose he just tested, 0.25 mg/kg, with a higher dose, 0.40 mg/kg.
Several reports have appeared in recent years suggesting that treatment with tenecteplase seems to be at least as good as alteplase in ischemic stroke patients. For example, a randomized trial with 75 ischemic stroke patients selected by imaging at three Australian centers showed that treatment with tenecteplase produced a significant 24% improvement in the rate of arterial reperfusion and an average 5-point improvement in NIH Stroke Scale score (N Engl J Med. 2012;366[12]:1099-107). And results from the NOR-TEST study recently showed that among 1,100 patients randomized at 13 Norwegian centers, the primary outcome of a 90-day modified Rankin Scale score of 0-1 was achieved by 64% of the tenecteplase patients and by 63% of those who received alteplase (Lancet Neurol. 2017 Oct;16[10]:781-8).
The EXTEND-IA TNK trial ran during 2015-2017 at 18 hospitals. All enrolled patients received their thrombolytic treatment within 4.5 hours of their stroke onset, and underwent endovascular thrombectomy within 6 hours of onset. The safety outcomes of death, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and parenchymal hematoma occurred at statistically similar rates in both treatment arms.
The study was investigator initiated and funded chiefly by the Australian government. Medtronic provided an unrestricted grant for trial infrastructure but had no role in study design conduct or analysis. Dr. Campbell and Dr. Powers had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Campbell B et al. ISC 2018, abstract LB2.
In the EXTEND-IA TNK study, tenecteplase appeared to act better than alteplase and has the extra advantage of being administered as a bolus injection. Alteplase is delivered as a drip, and it’s often hard to get patients with an intravenous infusion out of the hospital quickly when you have to transport the patient. You need a nurse in the ambulance monitoring the drip. With tenecteplase you administer the bolus and can then send the patient without an intravenous line.
Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, is professor of neurology and director of the stroke unit at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has received research support and personal fees from Medtronic-Abbott and Neuravia. He made these comments in an interview.
In the EXTEND-IA TNK study, tenecteplase appeared to act better than alteplase and has the extra advantage of being administered as a bolus injection. Alteplase is delivered as a drip, and it’s often hard to get patients with an intravenous infusion out of the hospital quickly when you have to transport the patient. You need a nurse in the ambulance monitoring the drip. With tenecteplase you administer the bolus and can then send the patient without an intravenous line.
Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, is professor of neurology and director of the stroke unit at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has received research support and personal fees from Medtronic-Abbott and Neuravia. He made these comments in an interview.
In the EXTEND-IA TNK study, tenecteplase appeared to act better than alteplase and has the extra advantage of being administered as a bolus injection. Alteplase is delivered as a drip, and it’s often hard to get patients with an intravenous infusion out of the hospital quickly when you have to transport the patient. You need a nurse in the ambulance monitoring the drip. With tenecteplase you administer the bolus and can then send the patient without an intravenous line.
Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, is professor of neurology and director of the stroke unit at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has received research support and personal fees from Medtronic-Abbott and Neuravia. He made these comments in an interview.
LOS ANGELES – Thrombolysis with tenecteplase beat alteplase on an acute imaging endpoint in patients with acute ischemic stroke who were on their way to also get thrombectomy in a randomized, multicenter study with 202 patients in Australia and New Zealand.
The results of the trial, called Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase Before Endovascular Therapy for Ischemic Stroke (EXTEND-IA TNK), showed that when the patients underwent their initial angiogram after receiving thrombolysis and before their thrombectomy procedure, the percentage of patients with robust blood flow – a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) score of 2b or 3 or no retrievable thrombus – was 22% in the patients treated with tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg and 10% among those who received alteplase 0.9 mg/kg. After adjustment, the 12% incremental change in robust reperfusion with tenecteplase calculated into a 2.6-fold higher rate of robust reperfusion, statistically significant for both noninferiority and for superiority, Bruce C. Campbell, MBBS, PhD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Tenecteplase is a genetically-modified tissue plasminogen activator with enhanced fibrin specificity that increases the drug’s half life and allows for bolus administration, unlike alteplase, which needs continuous infusion (CNS Drugs. 2015 Oct;29[10]:811-8). Tenecteplase also has a U.S. wholesale price that is about $3,000 cheaper per vial than alteplase, said Dr. Campbell, professor of neurology at the University of Melbourne and head of hyperacute stroke at Royal Melbourne Hospital.
But further data are needed before tenecteplase is ready for routine use, conceded Dr. Campbell, an assessment other experts agreed with. Dr. Campbell cited two studies in progress that are comparing tenecteplase with alteplase in acute ischemic stroke patients not headed for endovascular thrombectomy, as well as a study he is leading that compares the tenecteplase dose he just tested, 0.25 mg/kg, with a higher dose, 0.40 mg/kg.
Several reports have appeared in recent years suggesting that treatment with tenecteplase seems to be at least as good as alteplase in ischemic stroke patients. For example, a randomized trial with 75 ischemic stroke patients selected by imaging at three Australian centers showed that treatment with tenecteplase produced a significant 24% improvement in the rate of arterial reperfusion and an average 5-point improvement in NIH Stroke Scale score (N Engl J Med. 2012;366[12]:1099-107). And results from the NOR-TEST study recently showed that among 1,100 patients randomized at 13 Norwegian centers, the primary outcome of a 90-day modified Rankin Scale score of 0-1 was achieved by 64% of the tenecteplase patients and by 63% of those who received alteplase (Lancet Neurol. 2017 Oct;16[10]:781-8).
The EXTEND-IA TNK trial ran during 2015-2017 at 18 hospitals. All enrolled patients received their thrombolytic treatment within 4.5 hours of their stroke onset, and underwent endovascular thrombectomy within 6 hours of onset. The safety outcomes of death, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and parenchymal hematoma occurred at statistically similar rates in both treatment arms.
The study was investigator initiated and funded chiefly by the Australian government. Medtronic provided an unrestricted grant for trial infrastructure but had no role in study design conduct or analysis. Dr. Campbell and Dr. Powers had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Campbell B et al. ISC 2018, abstract LB2.
LOS ANGELES – Thrombolysis with tenecteplase beat alteplase on an acute imaging endpoint in patients with acute ischemic stroke who were on their way to also get thrombectomy in a randomized, multicenter study with 202 patients in Australia and New Zealand.
The results of the trial, called Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase Before Endovascular Therapy for Ischemic Stroke (EXTEND-IA TNK), showed that when the patients underwent their initial angiogram after receiving thrombolysis and before their thrombectomy procedure, the percentage of patients with robust blood flow – a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) score of 2b or 3 or no retrievable thrombus – was 22% in the patients treated with tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg and 10% among those who received alteplase 0.9 mg/kg. After adjustment, the 12% incremental change in robust reperfusion with tenecteplase calculated into a 2.6-fold higher rate of robust reperfusion, statistically significant for both noninferiority and for superiority, Bruce C. Campbell, MBBS, PhD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Tenecteplase is a genetically-modified tissue plasminogen activator with enhanced fibrin specificity that increases the drug’s half life and allows for bolus administration, unlike alteplase, which needs continuous infusion (CNS Drugs. 2015 Oct;29[10]:811-8). Tenecteplase also has a U.S. wholesale price that is about $3,000 cheaper per vial than alteplase, said Dr. Campbell, professor of neurology at the University of Melbourne and head of hyperacute stroke at Royal Melbourne Hospital.
But further data are needed before tenecteplase is ready for routine use, conceded Dr. Campbell, an assessment other experts agreed with. Dr. Campbell cited two studies in progress that are comparing tenecteplase with alteplase in acute ischemic stroke patients not headed for endovascular thrombectomy, as well as a study he is leading that compares the tenecteplase dose he just tested, 0.25 mg/kg, with a higher dose, 0.40 mg/kg.
Several reports have appeared in recent years suggesting that treatment with tenecteplase seems to be at least as good as alteplase in ischemic stroke patients. For example, a randomized trial with 75 ischemic stroke patients selected by imaging at three Australian centers showed that treatment with tenecteplase produced a significant 24% improvement in the rate of arterial reperfusion and an average 5-point improvement in NIH Stroke Scale score (N Engl J Med. 2012;366[12]:1099-107). And results from the NOR-TEST study recently showed that among 1,100 patients randomized at 13 Norwegian centers, the primary outcome of a 90-day modified Rankin Scale score of 0-1 was achieved by 64% of the tenecteplase patients and by 63% of those who received alteplase (Lancet Neurol. 2017 Oct;16[10]:781-8).
The EXTEND-IA TNK trial ran during 2015-2017 at 18 hospitals. All enrolled patients received their thrombolytic treatment within 4.5 hours of their stroke onset, and underwent endovascular thrombectomy within 6 hours of onset. The safety outcomes of death, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and parenchymal hematoma occurred at statistically similar rates in both treatment arms.
The study was investigator initiated and funded chiefly by the Australian government. Medtronic provided an unrestricted grant for trial infrastructure but had no role in study design conduct or analysis. Dr. Campbell and Dr. Powers had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Campbell B et al. ISC 2018, abstract LB2.
REPORTING FROM ISC 2018
Key clinical point: Tenecteplase thrombolysis produced better reperfusion than did alteplase.
Major finding: Robust reperfusion occurred in 22% of tenecteplase patients and in 10% of patients who received alteplase.
Study details: EXTEND-IA TNK, a multicenter, randomized trial with 202 patients.
Disclosures: The study was investigator initiated and funded chiefly by the Australian government. Medtronic provided an unrestricted grant for trial infrastructure but had no role in study design conduct or analysis. Dr. Campbell and Dr. Powers had no disclosures.
Source: Campbell B et al. ISC 2018, abstract LB2
Controversy surrounds calf vein thrombosis treatment
CHICAGO – The use of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with calf vein thrombosis significantly reduces the risk of venous thromboembolic complications, compared with lower-dose prophylactic anticoagulation or surveillance alone, Heron E. Rodriguez, MD, said at a symposium on vascular surgery sponsored by Northwestern University.
Moreover, placement of an inferior vena cava filter in patients with calf vein thrombosis when anticoagulation is contraindicated accomplishes nothing beneficial and had a 10% complication rate in a large retrospective single-center study, added Dr. Rodriguez of Northwestern University, Chicago.
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) remains a significant source of morbidity and mortality despite worldwide awareness of the problem.
“Specifically, calf vein thrombosis [CVT] is very common, and we know that in some series up to 30% of patients end up propagating proximally if they’re not treated, and a good number of them develop chronic venous insufficiency, with long-term consequences,” he noted.
“Unfortunately there is no consensus regarding treatment. The guidelines are very vague. For example, there is no mention [in current American College of Chest Physicians guidelines] of how to manage muscular vein thrombosis and much ambiguity on how to treat calf vein thrombosis,” he continued.
Dr. Rodriguez cited as an indication of the lack of consensus on management of CVT a single-institution survey by other investigators of the practices of physicians in various specialties. Forty-nine percent of respondents indicated they anticoagulate patients with CVT; 51% don’t. Of those who did, 62% prescribed low-molecular-weight heparin and 11% intravenous heparin. Fifty-eight percent of physicians who anticoagulated did so for 3 months, 30% for 6. And 46% of physicians used an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter when anticoagulation was contraindicated (Vascular. 2014 Apr;22[2]:93-7).
That rate of IVC placement “seemed really high” given the paucity of supporting evidence for safety and efficacy of filter placement in the setting of CVT, so Dr. Rodriguez and coinvestigators decided to conduct a retrospective review of practices at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. He explained the study hypothesis: “Our thinking was that these kinds of thrombi are associated with low risk of propagation and pulmonary embolism, and they can and should be managed conservatively.”
Of 647 patients with isolated thrombosis of the anterior and posterior tibial, soleal, peroneal, or gastrocnemius veins, 44% received an IVC filter, and the rest got medical treatment alone. Of the 362 patients managed medically, 49% received therapeutic anticoagulation, 12% got low-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, and 39% underwent surveillance without anticoagulation.
The primary outcome was the incidence of venous thromboembolic complications – that is, propagation of DVT or pulmonary embolism. The incidence was 35% in the surveillance-only group, 30% with prophylactic anticoagulation, and 10% in patients who got therapeutic anticoagulation.
Of note, the rate of the most feared complication, pulmonary embolism, was low and similar in the filter recipients and medically managed group: 2.5% in the IVC group, 3.3% with medical management.
“Distal vein thromboses have low rates of pulmonary embolism, regardless of whether or not they are so-called protected with a filter. On the other hand, a filter was associated with a 10% rate of complications. I have to make clear that these were radiographic abnormalities – tilting, migration, caval perforation – that didn’t have clinical consequences, but we were very aggressive in removing the IVC filters, and I’m guessing if they’d been left inside they would create problems in the long term,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
An important point about this study is that these were all sick patients, and most were hospitalized. The filter recipients and medical groups differed in key ways. For example, 49% of the filter patients had a malignancy, and 56% had a baseline history of venous thromboembolic events, compared with 26% and 16%, respectively, of the medical group. For that reason, the investigators performed propensity score matching and came up with 157 closely matched patient pairs. The outcomes remained unchanged.
Of course, this was a retrospective study, with its inherent limitations, but Dr. Rodriguez characterized the published randomized trials on management of CVT as “small and limited.” The most frequently quoted study is the double-blind multicenter CACTUS trial, which randomized 252 outpatients with symptomatic CVT to 6 weeks of low-molecular-weight heparin or placebo and found no difference in the rates of proximal extension of venous thromboembolic events (Lancet Haematol. 2016 Dec;3[12]:e556-62). But these were all low-risk patients. Prior DVT or malignancy were exclusion criteria, so this was a very different population than treated at Northwestern.
Based upon the results of the retrospective study at Northwestern, which have been published (J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2017 Jan;5[1]:25-32), the vascular surgery service has developed a management algorithm for DVT management based upon the lesion site. If a patient is unable to undergo anticoagulation, venous duplex ultrasound is repeated at 1 week. If the imaging shows propagation into the popliteal vein and anticoagulation remains contraindicated, only then is placement of an IVC filter warranted.
Dr. Rodriguez reported serving as a paid speaker for Abbott, Endologix, and W.L. Gore.
CHICAGO – The use of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with calf vein thrombosis significantly reduces the risk of venous thromboembolic complications, compared with lower-dose prophylactic anticoagulation or surveillance alone, Heron E. Rodriguez, MD, said at a symposium on vascular surgery sponsored by Northwestern University.
Moreover, placement of an inferior vena cava filter in patients with calf vein thrombosis when anticoagulation is contraindicated accomplishes nothing beneficial and had a 10% complication rate in a large retrospective single-center study, added Dr. Rodriguez of Northwestern University, Chicago.
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) remains a significant source of morbidity and mortality despite worldwide awareness of the problem.
“Specifically, calf vein thrombosis [CVT] is very common, and we know that in some series up to 30% of patients end up propagating proximally if they’re not treated, and a good number of them develop chronic venous insufficiency, with long-term consequences,” he noted.
“Unfortunately there is no consensus regarding treatment. The guidelines are very vague. For example, there is no mention [in current American College of Chest Physicians guidelines] of how to manage muscular vein thrombosis and much ambiguity on how to treat calf vein thrombosis,” he continued.
Dr. Rodriguez cited as an indication of the lack of consensus on management of CVT a single-institution survey by other investigators of the practices of physicians in various specialties. Forty-nine percent of respondents indicated they anticoagulate patients with CVT; 51% don’t. Of those who did, 62% prescribed low-molecular-weight heparin and 11% intravenous heparin. Fifty-eight percent of physicians who anticoagulated did so for 3 months, 30% for 6. And 46% of physicians used an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter when anticoagulation was contraindicated (Vascular. 2014 Apr;22[2]:93-7).
That rate of IVC placement “seemed really high” given the paucity of supporting evidence for safety and efficacy of filter placement in the setting of CVT, so Dr. Rodriguez and coinvestigators decided to conduct a retrospective review of practices at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. He explained the study hypothesis: “Our thinking was that these kinds of thrombi are associated with low risk of propagation and pulmonary embolism, and they can and should be managed conservatively.”
Of 647 patients with isolated thrombosis of the anterior and posterior tibial, soleal, peroneal, or gastrocnemius veins, 44% received an IVC filter, and the rest got medical treatment alone. Of the 362 patients managed medically, 49% received therapeutic anticoagulation, 12% got low-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, and 39% underwent surveillance without anticoagulation.
The primary outcome was the incidence of venous thromboembolic complications – that is, propagation of DVT or pulmonary embolism. The incidence was 35% in the surveillance-only group, 30% with prophylactic anticoagulation, and 10% in patients who got therapeutic anticoagulation.
Of note, the rate of the most feared complication, pulmonary embolism, was low and similar in the filter recipients and medically managed group: 2.5% in the IVC group, 3.3% with medical management.
“Distal vein thromboses have low rates of pulmonary embolism, regardless of whether or not they are so-called protected with a filter. On the other hand, a filter was associated with a 10% rate of complications. I have to make clear that these were radiographic abnormalities – tilting, migration, caval perforation – that didn’t have clinical consequences, but we were very aggressive in removing the IVC filters, and I’m guessing if they’d been left inside they would create problems in the long term,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
An important point about this study is that these were all sick patients, and most were hospitalized. The filter recipients and medical groups differed in key ways. For example, 49% of the filter patients had a malignancy, and 56% had a baseline history of venous thromboembolic events, compared with 26% and 16%, respectively, of the medical group. For that reason, the investigators performed propensity score matching and came up with 157 closely matched patient pairs. The outcomes remained unchanged.
Of course, this was a retrospective study, with its inherent limitations, but Dr. Rodriguez characterized the published randomized trials on management of CVT as “small and limited.” The most frequently quoted study is the double-blind multicenter CACTUS trial, which randomized 252 outpatients with symptomatic CVT to 6 weeks of low-molecular-weight heparin or placebo and found no difference in the rates of proximal extension of venous thromboembolic events (Lancet Haematol. 2016 Dec;3[12]:e556-62). But these were all low-risk patients. Prior DVT or malignancy were exclusion criteria, so this was a very different population than treated at Northwestern.
Based upon the results of the retrospective study at Northwestern, which have been published (J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2017 Jan;5[1]:25-32), the vascular surgery service has developed a management algorithm for DVT management based upon the lesion site. If a patient is unable to undergo anticoagulation, venous duplex ultrasound is repeated at 1 week. If the imaging shows propagation into the popliteal vein and anticoagulation remains contraindicated, only then is placement of an IVC filter warranted.
Dr. Rodriguez reported serving as a paid speaker for Abbott, Endologix, and W.L. Gore.
CHICAGO – The use of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with calf vein thrombosis significantly reduces the risk of venous thromboembolic complications, compared with lower-dose prophylactic anticoagulation or surveillance alone, Heron E. Rodriguez, MD, said at a symposium on vascular surgery sponsored by Northwestern University.
Moreover, placement of an inferior vena cava filter in patients with calf vein thrombosis when anticoagulation is contraindicated accomplishes nothing beneficial and had a 10% complication rate in a large retrospective single-center study, added Dr. Rodriguez of Northwestern University, Chicago.
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) remains a significant source of morbidity and mortality despite worldwide awareness of the problem.
“Specifically, calf vein thrombosis [CVT] is very common, and we know that in some series up to 30% of patients end up propagating proximally if they’re not treated, and a good number of them develop chronic venous insufficiency, with long-term consequences,” he noted.
“Unfortunately there is no consensus regarding treatment. The guidelines are very vague. For example, there is no mention [in current American College of Chest Physicians guidelines] of how to manage muscular vein thrombosis and much ambiguity on how to treat calf vein thrombosis,” he continued.
Dr. Rodriguez cited as an indication of the lack of consensus on management of CVT a single-institution survey by other investigators of the practices of physicians in various specialties. Forty-nine percent of respondents indicated they anticoagulate patients with CVT; 51% don’t. Of those who did, 62% prescribed low-molecular-weight heparin and 11% intravenous heparin. Fifty-eight percent of physicians who anticoagulated did so for 3 months, 30% for 6. And 46% of physicians used an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter when anticoagulation was contraindicated (Vascular. 2014 Apr;22[2]:93-7).
That rate of IVC placement “seemed really high” given the paucity of supporting evidence for safety and efficacy of filter placement in the setting of CVT, so Dr. Rodriguez and coinvestigators decided to conduct a retrospective review of practices at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. He explained the study hypothesis: “Our thinking was that these kinds of thrombi are associated with low risk of propagation and pulmonary embolism, and they can and should be managed conservatively.”
Of 647 patients with isolated thrombosis of the anterior and posterior tibial, soleal, peroneal, or gastrocnemius veins, 44% received an IVC filter, and the rest got medical treatment alone. Of the 362 patients managed medically, 49% received therapeutic anticoagulation, 12% got low-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, and 39% underwent surveillance without anticoagulation.
The primary outcome was the incidence of venous thromboembolic complications – that is, propagation of DVT or pulmonary embolism. The incidence was 35% in the surveillance-only group, 30% with prophylactic anticoagulation, and 10% in patients who got therapeutic anticoagulation.
Of note, the rate of the most feared complication, pulmonary embolism, was low and similar in the filter recipients and medically managed group: 2.5% in the IVC group, 3.3% with medical management.
“Distal vein thromboses have low rates of pulmonary embolism, regardless of whether or not they are so-called protected with a filter. On the other hand, a filter was associated with a 10% rate of complications. I have to make clear that these were radiographic abnormalities – tilting, migration, caval perforation – that didn’t have clinical consequences, but we were very aggressive in removing the IVC filters, and I’m guessing if they’d been left inside they would create problems in the long term,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
An important point about this study is that these were all sick patients, and most were hospitalized. The filter recipients and medical groups differed in key ways. For example, 49% of the filter patients had a malignancy, and 56% had a baseline history of venous thromboembolic events, compared with 26% and 16%, respectively, of the medical group. For that reason, the investigators performed propensity score matching and came up with 157 closely matched patient pairs. The outcomes remained unchanged.
Of course, this was a retrospective study, with its inherent limitations, but Dr. Rodriguez characterized the published randomized trials on management of CVT as “small and limited.” The most frequently quoted study is the double-blind multicenter CACTUS trial, which randomized 252 outpatients with symptomatic CVT to 6 weeks of low-molecular-weight heparin or placebo and found no difference in the rates of proximal extension of venous thromboembolic events (Lancet Haematol. 2016 Dec;3[12]:e556-62). But these were all low-risk patients. Prior DVT or malignancy were exclusion criteria, so this was a very different population than treated at Northwestern.
Based upon the results of the retrospective study at Northwestern, which have been published (J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2017 Jan;5[1]:25-32), the vascular surgery service has developed a management algorithm for DVT management based upon the lesion site. If a patient is unable to undergo anticoagulation, venous duplex ultrasound is repeated at 1 week. If the imaging shows propagation into the popliteal vein and anticoagulation remains contraindicated, only then is placement of an IVC filter warranted.
Dr. Rodriguez reported serving as a paid speaker for Abbott, Endologix, and W.L. Gore.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM NORTHWESTERN VASCULAR SYMPOSIUM
Late thrombectomy for stroke has low number needed to treat for benefit
LOS ANGELES – The number of ischemic stroke patients with a clinical core mismatch showing salvageable tissue who need to be treated with thrombectomy to obtain a significant benefit on functional outcomes is just 2 when the time frame from last known well extends out to 24 hours, according a subanalysis of results from the DAWN trial.
The Jan. 4, 2018, publication of the DAWN trial revealed that patients with ischemic strokes can benefit from thrombectomy long after the time window generally thought to afford benefits had closed (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:11-21). The procedure yielded significant benefits in functional outcomes at 90 days in patients with a clinical core mismatch showing salvageable tissue.
The results are important because health care systems must now make decisions about allocating resources for the treatment of these patients, which will include installing imaging techniques and expertise at various centers. “It will be practical in some primary stroke centers and not in others. We’re going to see a lot of interesting research about what frontline hospitals should do. There are lots of options at that screening step, and we’re going to need experience to see what’s best. It won’t be the same answer for everyone,” Jeffrey Saver, MD, said during a press conference announcing the results at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. Dr. Saver is director of the stroke unit at the University of California, Los Angeles, and professor of clinical neurology at the university.
The DAWN trial randomized 206 patients to thrombectomy plus standard care or standard care alone. The study was halted at an enrollment of 206 patients because of overwhelming efficacy. To be eligible, the patients had to have a mismatch between the severity of clinical deficit and the infarct volume as measured via automated analysis (RAPID software, SchemaView) of diffusion-weighted MRI or perfusion CT. They had to have substantial clinical deficits, but limited infarct size, with specific criteria varying with age, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, and infarct size.
The NNT for an mRS score of 0 (asymptomatic) was 19. For freedom from disability (mRS, 0-1), the NNT was 4. For functional independence (mRS, 0-2), it was 3. To achieve ambulatory status (mRS, 0-3), it was 3. To avoid a requirement for constant care (mRS, 0-4), the NNT was 9.
To achieve any reduction in disability at all, the NNT was 2. This value was identical when looking at patients in the 6- to 12-hour window and those in the 12- to 24-hour window. However, the nature of the benefit was different. “In the late window (12-24 hours), outcomes went from really bad to pretty good. In the early window, it was somewhat bad to very good. So it’s still better to be treated early,” Dr. Saver said.
In short, for every 100 patients treated, 50 would gain an improvement in disability-related quality of life, and 36 would gain functional independence. In the 6- to 12-hour group, 45 of every 100 patients would experience lower disability as a result of treatment, as would 56 of every 100 treated patients in the 12- to 24-hour group.
Stryker Neurovascular funded the study. Dr. Saver has consulted for Stryker and received travel reimbursement.
LOS ANGELES – The number of ischemic stroke patients with a clinical core mismatch showing salvageable tissue who need to be treated with thrombectomy to obtain a significant benefit on functional outcomes is just 2 when the time frame from last known well extends out to 24 hours, according a subanalysis of results from the DAWN trial.
The Jan. 4, 2018, publication of the DAWN trial revealed that patients with ischemic strokes can benefit from thrombectomy long after the time window generally thought to afford benefits had closed (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:11-21). The procedure yielded significant benefits in functional outcomes at 90 days in patients with a clinical core mismatch showing salvageable tissue.
The results are important because health care systems must now make decisions about allocating resources for the treatment of these patients, which will include installing imaging techniques and expertise at various centers. “It will be practical in some primary stroke centers and not in others. We’re going to see a lot of interesting research about what frontline hospitals should do. There are lots of options at that screening step, and we’re going to need experience to see what’s best. It won’t be the same answer for everyone,” Jeffrey Saver, MD, said during a press conference announcing the results at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. Dr. Saver is director of the stroke unit at the University of California, Los Angeles, and professor of clinical neurology at the university.
The DAWN trial randomized 206 patients to thrombectomy plus standard care or standard care alone. The study was halted at an enrollment of 206 patients because of overwhelming efficacy. To be eligible, the patients had to have a mismatch between the severity of clinical deficit and the infarct volume as measured via automated analysis (RAPID software, SchemaView) of diffusion-weighted MRI or perfusion CT. They had to have substantial clinical deficits, but limited infarct size, with specific criteria varying with age, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, and infarct size.
The NNT for an mRS score of 0 (asymptomatic) was 19. For freedom from disability (mRS, 0-1), the NNT was 4. For functional independence (mRS, 0-2), it was 3. To achieve ambulatory status (mRS, 0-3), it was 3. To avoid a requirement for constant care (mRS, 0-4), the NNT was 9.
To achieve any reduction in disability at all, the NNT was 2. This value was identical when looking at patients in the 6- to 12-hour window and those in the 12- to 24-hour window. However, the nature of the benefit was different. “In the late window (12-24 hours), outcomes went from really bad to pretty good. In the early window, it was somewhat bad to very good. So it’s still better to be treated early,” Dr. Saver said.
In short, for every 100 patients treated, 50 would gain an improvement in disability-related quality of life, and 36 would gain functional independence. In the 6- to 12-hour group, 45 of every 100 patients would experience lower disability as a result of treatment, as would 56 of every 100 treated patients in the 12- to 24-hour group.
Stryker Neurovascular funded the study. Dr. Saver has consulted for Stryker and received travel reimbursement.
LOS ANGELES – The number of ischemic stroke patients with a clinical core mismatch showing salvageable tissue who need to be treated with thrombectomy to obtain a significant benefit on functional outcomes is just 2 when the time frame from last known well extends out to 24 hours, according a subanalysis of results from the DAWN trial.
The Jan. 4, 2018, publication of the DAWN trial revealed that patients with ischemic strokes can benefit from thrombectomy long after the time window generally thought to afford benefits had closed (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:11-21). The procedure yielded significant benefits in functional outcomes at 90 days in patients with a clinical core mismatch showing salvageable tissue.
The results are important because health care systems must now make decisions about allocating resources for the treatment of these patients, which will include installing imaging techniques and expertise at various centers. “It will be practical in some primary stroke centers and not in others. We’re going to see a lot of interesting research about what frontline hospitals should do. There are lots of options at that screening step, and we’re going to need experience to see what’s best. It won’t be the same answer for everyone,” Jeffrey Saver, MD, said during a press conference announcing the results at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. Dr. Saver is director of the stroke unit at the University of California, Los Angeles, and professor of clinical neurology at the university.
The DAWN trial randomized 206 patients to thrombectomy plus standard care or standard care alone. The study was halted at an enrollment of 206 patients because of overwhelming efficacy. To be eligible, the patients had to have a mismatch between the severity of clinical deficit and the infarct volume as measured via automated analysis (RAPID software, SchemaView) of diffusion-weighted MRI or perfusion CT. They had to have substantial clinical deficits, but limited infarct size, with specific criteria varying with age, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, and infarct size.
The NNT for an mRS score of 0 (asymptomatic) was 19. For freedom from disability (mRS, 0-1), the NNT was 4. For functional independence (mRS, 0-2), it was 3. To achieve ambulatory status (mRS, 0-3), it was 3. To avoid a requirement for constant care (mRS, 0-4), the NNT was 9.
To achieve any reduction in disability at all, the NNT was 2. This value was identical when looking at patients in the 6- to 12-hour window and those in the 12- to 24-hour window. However, the nature of the benefit was different. “In the late window (12-24 hours), outcomes went from really bad to pretty good. In the early window, it was somewhat bad to very good. So it’s still better to be treated early,” Dr. Saver said.
In short, for every 100 patients treated, 50 would gain an improvement in disability-related quality of life, and 36 would gain functional independence. In the 6- to 12-hour group, 45 of every 100 patients would experience lower disability as a result of treatment, as would 56 of every 100 treated patients in the 12- to 24-hour group.
Stryker Neurovascular funded the study. Dr. Saver has consulted for Stryker and received travel reimbursement.
REPORTING FROM ISC 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: To achieve a functional improvement at 90 days, the number needed to treat was 2.
Data source: Subanalysis of the randomized, controlled DAWN trial (n = 206).
Disclosures: Stryker Neurovascular funded the study. Dr. Saver has consulted for Stryker and received travel reimbursement.
Source: Saver J et al. ISC 2018 abstract LB3
LAA occlusion boosts anticoagulants’ protection
ORLANDO – When patients with atrial fibrillation have a history of cardioembolic events despite optimal anticoagulant therapy, treatment with left atrial appendage occlusion can substantially improve protection against future events, according to a multicenter review of 22 patients.
During the 2 years prior to undergoing left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion, the 22 atrial fibrillation (AF) patients studied had a total of 44 cardioembolic events despite receiving “optimal” treatment with an oral anticoagulant, including nine patients with one event, six patients with two events, five patients with three events, and two patients with four events each, Xavier Freixa, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. In contrast, during a median follow-up of 1.8 years after their procedure additional events occurred in just two patients – one with a stroke, the other with a transient ischemic attack, while the remaining 20 patients remained free of any additional events.
The analysis also revealed that the two patients who had cardioembolic events following their LAA occlusion had been withdrawn from oral anticoagulant treatment by their physicians, who had done this with a “false feeling of comfort,” said Dr. Freixa, an interventional cardiologist at the University Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. These two patients were among three patients maintained on dual-antiplatelet therapy rather than on an oral anticoagulant following LAA occlusion. The remaining 19 patients had remained on either warfarin, a novel oral anticoagulant, or both.
The study included patients from eight Spanish centers who underwent LAA occlusion during June 2009–June 2017, and included 14 with nonvalvular AF and 8 with valvular AF who had all undergone prior valve surgery. None of the 22 patients had a contraindication for treatment with an oral anticoagulant. They averaged about 69 years of age. Prior to their procedure, 18 had at least one stroke or transient ischemic attack, and the remaining 4 patients had at least one systemic embolism. Nineteen patients underwent occlusion with either an Amplatzer Cardiac Plug or Amplatzer Amulet device, two received a Watchman device, and one patient received a LAmbre device. All of the closure procedures were successful, with no complications.
“I think any device will do well for these patients as long as we occlude the LAA,” Dr. Freixa said.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
SOURCE: Freixa X et al. AF Symposium 2018 Abstract 1821.
ORLANDO – When patients with atrial fibrillation have a history of cardioembolic events despite optimal anticoagulant therapy, treatment with left atrial appendage occlusion can substantially improve protection against future events, according to a multicenter review of 22 patients.
During the 2 years prior to undergoing left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion, the 22 atrial fibrillation (AF) patients studied had a total of 44 cardioembolic events despite receiving “optimal” treatment with an oral anticoagulant, including nine patients with one event, six patients with two events, five patients with three events, and two patients with four events each, Xavier Freixa, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. In contrast, during a median follow-up of 1.8 years after their procedure additional events occurred in just two patients – one with a stroke, the other with a transient ischemic attack, while the remaining 20 patients remained free of any additional events.
The analysis also revealed that the two patients who had cardioembolic events following their LAA occlusion had been withdrawn from oral anticoagulant treatment by their physicians, who had done this with a “false feeling of comfort,” said Dr. Freixa, an interventional cardiologist at the University Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. These two patients were among three patients maintained on dual-antiplatelet therapy rather than on an oral anticoagulant following LAA occlusion. The remaining 19 patients had remained on either warfarin, a novel oral anticoagulant, or both.
The study included patients from eight Spanish centers who underwent LAA occlusion during June 2009–June 2017, and included 14 with nonvalvular AF and 8 with valvular AF who had all undergone prior valve surgery. None of the 22 patients had a contraindication for treatment with an oral anticoagulant. They averaged about 69 years of age. Prior to their procedure, 18 had at least one stroke or transient ischemic attack, and the remaining 4 patients had at least one systemic embolism. Nineteen patients underwent occlusion with either an Amplatzer Cardiac Plug or Amplatzer Amulet device, two received a Watchman device, and one patient received a LAmbre device. All of the closure procedures were successful, with no complications.
“I think any device will do well for these patients as long as we occlude the LAA,” Dr. Freixa said.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
SOURCE: Freixa X et al. AF Symposium 2018 Abstract 1821.
ORLANDO – When patients with atrial fibrillation have a history of cardioembolic events despite optimal anticoagulant therapy, treatment with left atrial appendage occlusion can substantially improve protection against future events, according to a multicenter review of 22 patients.
During the 2 years prior to undergoing left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion, the 22 atrial fibrillation (AF) patients studied had a total of 44 cardioembolic events despite receiving “optimal” treatment with an oral anticoagulant, including nine patients with one event, six patients with two events, five patients with three events, and two patients with four events each, Xavier Freixa, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. In contrast, during a median follow-up of 1.8 years after their procedure additional events occurred in just two patients – one with a stroke, the other with a transient ischemic attack, while the remaining 20 patients remained free of any additional events.
The analysis also revealed that the two patients who had cardioembolic events following their LAA occlusion had been withdrawn from oral anticoagulant treatment by their physicians, who had done this with a “false feeling of comfort,” said Dr. Freixa, an interventional cardiologist at the University Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. These two patients were among three patients maintained on dual-antiplatelet therapy rather than on an oral anticoagulant following LAA occlusion. The remaining 19 patients had remained on either warfarin, a novel oral anticoagulant, or both.
The study included patients from eight Spanish centers who underwent LAA occlusion during June 2009–June 2017, and included 14 with nonvalvular AF and 8 with valvular AF who had all undergone prior valve surgery. None of the 22 patients had a contraindication for treatment with an oral anticoagulant. They averaged about 69 years of age. Prior to their procedure, 18 had at least one stroke or transient ischemic attack, and the remaining 4 patients had at least one systemic embolism. Nineteen patients underwent occlusion with either an Amplatzer Cardiac Plug or Amplatzer Amulet device, two received a Watchman device, and one patient received a LAmbre device. All of the closure procedures were successful, with no complications.
“I think any device will do well for these patients as long as we occlude the LAA,” Dr. Freixa said.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
SOURCE: Freixa X et al. AF Symposium 2018 Abstract 1821.
REPORTING FROM THE AF SYMPOSIUM 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Two of 22 patients had a cardioembolic event after left atrial appendage occlusion.
Study details: Review of 22 patients at eight Spanish centers with atrial fibrillation and a history of cardioembolic events despite oral anticoagulation.
Disclosures: Dr. Freixa has been a proctor for Abbott Medical.
Source: Freixa X et al. AF Symposium 2018 Abstract 1821.
VIDEO: COMPASS shows stroke-clot aspiration noninferior to retrieval
LOS ANGELES – Clot removal in acute ischemic stroke patients using an aspiration catheter was noninferior to clot removal using the standard method, a stent retriever, in a multicenter, randomized trial with 270 patients.
“There is now level I evidence that stent retrievers and primary aspiration have equivalent outcomes in emergent large vessel occlusions,” J Mocco, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
The results “will give physicians more choice,” Dr. Mocco said in a video interview. Until now, “many physicians felt that they had to use stent retrievers” because these devices had an much bigger evidence base of efficacy and safety. The new findings provide evidence that supports aspiration as an alternative strategy, said Dr. Mocco, professor of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.
The results Dr. Mocco reported from the COMPASS trial (Comparison of Direct Aspiration vs. Stent Retriever as a First Approach) were the second time that clot aspiration was shown to produce outcomes similar to stent retrieval. Similar findings came from a French multicenter trial, ASTER, reported in 2017 (JAMA. 2017 Aug 1;318[5]:443-52).
The study ran at 15 U.S. centers during 2015-2017 and randomized patients with emergent large vessel occlusion strokes to receive initial treatment with either an aspiration catheter or a stent retriever. The specific type of catheter or stent used was left up to each operator. In 83% of the aspiration cases and 81% of the stent retriever cases, the initial device used produced a moderately high or better level of restored blood flow within the occluded artery, with thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b flow or greater.
The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at 90 days after treatment, which occurred in 52% of patients treated with aspiration first and in 49% of those treated by retrieval first, which met the study’s prespecified criterion for noninferiority of the aspiration strategy, Dr. Mocco reported.
The results also showed suggestions of faster responses in the patients treated by aspiration first, although these did not reach statistical significance. The highest rate of restored blood flow within the occluded artery, TICI 3 flow, occurred in 34% of patients treated by aspiration first and in 23% of those treated with retrieval first. The average time to produce TICI 2b flow or greater was 22 minutes in the aspiration-first patients, compared with 33 minutes among retrieval-first patients.
“I prefer to start with aspiration first because it’s fast and efficient,” Dr. Mocco said. “I find encouragement in the nonsignificant faster rate of reperfusion” seen in the results.
The study’s safety endpoints, the rate of all-cause mortality after 90 days, all intracranial hemorrhages, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages, were all similar in the two study arms.
The COMPASS study was funded by Penumbra, but the company had no role in the trial’s design or analysis. Dr. Mocco has been a consultant to Cerebrotech Medical, EndoStream, Rebound Medical, Synchron, and Viseon and has investments in some of these companies. Dr. Sacco had no disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SOURCE: Mocco J et al. ISC 2018, Abstract LB4.
LOS ANGELES – Clot removal in acute ischemic stroke patients using an aspiration catheter was noninferior to clot removal using the standard method, a stent retriever, in a multicenter, randomized trial with 270 patients.
“There is now level I evidence that stent retrievers and primary aspiration have equivalent outcomes in emergent large vessel occlusions,” J Mocco, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
The results “will give physicians more choice,” Dr. Mocco said in a video interview. Until now, “many physicians felt that they had to use stent retrievers” because these devices had an much bigger evidence base of efficacy and safety. The new findings provide evidence that supports aspiration as an alternative strategy, said Dr. Mocco, professor of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.
The results Dr. Mocco reported from the COMPASS trial (Comparison of Direct Aspiration vs. Stent Retriever as a First Approach) were the second time that clot aspiration was shown to produce outcomes similar to stent retrieval. Similar findings came from a French multicenter trial, ASTER, reported in 2017 (JAMA. 2017 Aug 1;318[5]:443-52).
The study ran at 15 U.S. centers during 2015-2017 and randomized patients with emergent large vessel occlusion strokes to receive initial treatment with either an aspiration catheter or a stent retriever. The specific type of catheter or stent used was left up to each operator. In 83% of the aspiration cases and 81% of the stent retriever cases, the initial device used produced a moderately high or better level of restored blood flow within the occluded artery, with thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b flow or greater.
The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at 90 days after treatment, which occurred in 52% of patients treated with aspiration first and in 49% of those treated by retrieval first, which met the study’s prespecified criterion for noninferiority of the aspiration strategy, Dr. Mocco reported.
The results also showed suggestions of faster responses in the patients treated by aspiration first, although these did not reach statistical significance. The highest rate of restored blood flow within the occluded artery, TICI 3 flow, occurred in 34% of patients treated by aspiration first and in 23% of those treated with retrieval first. The average time to produce TICI 2b flow or greater was 22 minutes in the aspiration-first patients, compared with 33 minutes among retrieval-first patients.
“I prefer to start with aspiration first because it’s fast and efficient,” Dr. Mocco said. “I find encouragement in the nonsignificant faster rate of reperfusion” seen in the results.
The study’s safety endpoints, the rate of all-cause mortality after 90 days, all intracranial hemorrhages, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages, were all similar in the two study arms.
The COMPASS study was funded by Penumbra, but the company had no role in the trial’s design or analysis. Dr. Mocco has been a consultant to Cerebrotech Medical, EndoStream, Rebound Medical, Synchron, and Viseon and has investments in some of these companies. Dr. Sacco had no disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SOURCE: Mocco J et al. ISC 2018, Abstract LB4.
LOS ANGELES – Clot removal in acute ischemic stroke patients using an aspiration catheter was noninferior to clot removal using the standard method, a stent retriever, in a multicenter, randomized trial with 270 patients.
“There is now level I evidence that stent retrievers and primary aspiration have equivalent outcomes in emergent large vessel occlusions,” J Mocco, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
The results “will give physicians more choice,” Dr. Mocco said in a video interview. Until now, “many physicians felt that they had to use stent retrievers” because these devices had an much bigger evidence base of efficacy and safety. The new findings provide evidence that supports aspiration as an alternative strategy, said Dr. Mocco, professor of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.
The results Dr. Mocco reported from the COMPASS trial (Comparison of Direct Aspiration vs. Stent Retriever as a First Approach) were the second time that clot aspiration was shown to produce outcomes similar to stent retrieval. Similar findings came from a French multicenter trial, ASTER, reported in 2017 (JAMA. 2017 Aug 1;318[5]:443-52).
The study ran at 15 U.S. centers during 2015-2017 and randomized patients with emergent large vessel occlusion strokes to receive initial treatment with either an aspiration catheter or a stent retriever. The specific type of catheter or stent used was left up to each operator. In 83% of the aspiration cases and 81% of the stent retriever cases, the initial device used produced a moderately high or better level of restored blood flow within the occluded artery, with thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b flow or greater.
The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at 90 days after treatment, which occurred in 52% of patients treated with aspiration first and in 49% of those treated by retrieval first, which met the study’s prespecified criterion for noninferiority of the aspiration strategy, Dr. Mocco reported.
The results also showed suggestions of faster responses in the patients treated by aspiration first, although these did not reach statistical significance. The highest rate of restored blood flow within the occluded artery, TICI 3 flow, occurred in 34% of patients treated by aspiration first and in 23% of those treated with retrieval first. The average time to produce TICI 2b flow or greater was 22 minutes in the aspiration-first patients, compared with 33 minutes among retrieval-first patients.
“I prefer to start with aspiration first because it’s fast and efficient,” Dr. Mocco said. “I find encouragement in the nonsignificant faster rate of reperfusion” seen in the results.
The study’s safety endpoints, the rate of all-cause mortality after 90 days, all intracranial hemorrhages, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages, were all similar in the two study arms.
The COMPASS study was funded by Penumbra, but the company had no role in the trial’s design or analysis. Dr. Mocco has been a consultant to Cerebrotech Medical, EndoStream, Rebound Medical, Synchron, and Viseon and has investments in some of these companies. Dr. Sacco had no disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SOURCE: Mocco J et al. ISC 2018, Abstract LB4.
REPORTING FROM ISC 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The 90-day modified Rankin Scale score was 0-2 in 52% of aspiration patients and 49% of clot retrieval patients.
Study details: COMPASS, a multicenter, U.S. randomized trial with 270 patients.
Disclosures: The COMPASS study was funded by Penumbra, but the company had no role in the trial’s design or analysis. Dr. Mocco has been a consultant to Cerebrotech Medical, EndoStream, Rebound Medical, Synchron, and Viseon and has investments in some of these companies. Dr. Sacco had no disclosures.
Source: Mocco J et al. ISC 2018, Abstract LB4.
