Richard Mark Kirkner

PHILADELPHIA – Giving the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) to patients with acute myocardial infarction and impaired left ventricular systolic function but no diabetes or chronic heart failure significantly improved a composite of cardiovascular outcomes, a European registry-based randomized trial suggests.

In presenting these results from the DAPA-MI trial, Stefan James, MD, of Uppsala University (Sweden), noted that patients randomly assigned to dapagliflozin 10 mg along with the standard of care had improved outcomes based on a composite of seven primary endpoints, which the trial described as the hierarchical “win ratio” composite outcomes, compared with patients randomized to placebo plus standard of care.

Richard M. Kirkner/MDedge News

“The ‘win ratio’ tells us that there’s a 34% higher likelihood of patients having a better cardiometabolic outcome with dapagliflozin vs placebo in terms of the seven components,” James said in an interview. The win ratio was achieved in 32.9% of dapagliflozin patients versus 24.6% of placebo (P < .001).

Dr. James presented the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and they were published online simultaneously in NEJM Evidence.
 

Lower-risk patients 

DAPA-MI enrolled 4,017 patients from the SWEDEHEART and Myocardial Ischemia National Audit Project registries in Sweden and the United Kingdom, randomly assigning patients to dapagliflozin 10 mg or placebo along with guideline-directed therapy for both groups.

Eligible patients were hemodynamically stable, had an acute MI within 10 days of enrollment, and impaired left ventricular systolic function or a Q-wave MI. Exclusion criteria included history of either type 1 or 2 diabetes, chronic heart failure, poor kidney function, or current treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between trial arms.

• The hierarchical seven primary endpoints were:
• Death, with cardiovascular death ranked first followed by noncardiovascular death
• Hospitalization because of heart failure, with adjudicated first followed by investigator-reported HF
• Nonfatal MI
• Atrial fibrillation/flutter event
• New diagnosis of type 2 diabetes
• New York Heart Association functional class at the last visit
• Drop in body weight of at least 5% at the last visit

The key secondary endpoint, Dr. James said, was the primary outcome minus the body weight component, with time to first occurrence of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death.

When the seventh factor, body weight decrease, was removed, the differential narrowed: 20.3% versus 16.9% (P = .015). When two or more variables were removed from the composite, the differences were not statistically significant.

For 11 secondary and exploratory outcomes, ranging from CV death or hospitalization for HF to all-cause hospitalization, the outcomes were similar in both the dapagliflozin and placebo groups across the board.

However, the dapagliflozin patients had about half the rate of developing diabetes, compared with the placebo group: 2.1 % versus 3.9%.  

The trial initially used the composite of CV death and hospitalization for HF as the primary endpoint, but switched to the seven-item composite endpoint in February because the number of primary composite outcomes was substantially lower than anticipated, Dr. James said.

He acknowledged the study was underpowered for the low-risk population it enrolled. “But if you extended the trial to a larger population and enriched it with a higher-risk population you would probably see an effect,” he said.

“The cardiometabolic benefit was consistent across all prespecified subgroups and there were no new safety concerns,” Dr. James told the attendees. “Clinical event rates were low with no significant difference between randomized groups.”
 

Not a ringing endorsement

But for invited discussant Stephen D. Wiviott, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, the DAPA-MI trial result isn’t quite a ringing endorsement of SGLT2 inhibition in these patients.

Richard M. Kirkner/MDedge News

“From my perspective, DAPA-MI does not suggest a new mandate to expand SGLT2 inhibition to an isolated MI population without other SGLT2 inhibitor indications,” Dr. Wiviott told attendees. “But it does support the safety of its use among patients with acute coronary syndromes.”

However, “these results do not indicate a lack of clinical benefit in patients with prior MI and any of those previously identified conditions – a history of diabetes, coronary heart failure or chronic kidney disease – where SGLT2 inhibition remains a pillar of guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Wiviott said.

In an interview, Dr. Wiviott described the trial design as a “hybrid” in that it used a registry but then added, in his words, “some of the bells and whistles that we have with normal cardiovascular clinical trials.” He further explained: “This is a nice combination of those two things, where they use that as part of the endpoint for the trial but they’re able to add in some of the pieces that you would in a regular registration pathway trial.”

The trial design could serve as a model for future pragmatic therapeutic trials in acute MI, he said, but he acknowledged that DAPA-MI was underpowered to discern many key outcomes.

“They anticipated they were going to have a rate of around 11% of events so they needed to enroll about 6,000 people, but somewhere in the middle of the trial they saw the rate was 2.5%, not 11%, so they had to completely change the trial,” he said of the DAPA-MI investigators.

But an appropriately powered study of SGLT2 inhibition in this population would need about 28,000 patients. “This would be an enormous trial to actually clinically power, so in my sense it’s not going to happen,” Dr. Wiviott said.

The DAPA-MI trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. James disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen. Dr. Wiviott disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Icon Clinical, Novo Nordisk, and Varian.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Giving the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) to patients with acute myocardial infarction and impaired left ventricular systolic function but no diabetes or chronic heart failure significantly improved a composite of cardiovascular outcomes, a European registry-based randomized trial suggests.

In presenting these results from the DAPA-MI trial, Stefan James, MD, of Uppsala University (Sweden), noted that patients randomly assigned to dapagliflozin 10 mg along with the standard of care had improved outcomes based on a composite of seven primary endpoints, which the trial described as the hierarchical “win ratio” composite outcomes, compared with patients randomized to placebo plus standard of care.

Richard M. Kirkner/MDedge News

“The ‘win ratio’ tells us that there’s a 34% higher likelihood of patients having a better cardiometabolic outcome with dapagliflozin vs placebo in terms of the seven components,” James said in an interview. The win ratio was achieved in 32.9% of dapagliflozin patients versus 24.6% of placebo (P < .001).

Dr. James presented the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and they were published online simultaneously in NEJM Evidence.
 

Lower-risk patients 

DAPA-MI enrolled 4,017 patients from the SWEDEHEART and Myocardial Ischemia National Audit Project registries in Sweden and the United Kingdom, randomly assigning patients to dapagliflozin 10 mg or placebo along with guideline-directed therapy for both groups.

Eligible patients were hemodynamically stable, had an acute MI within 10 days of enrollment, and impaired left ventricular systolic function or a Q-wave MI. Exclusion criteria included history of either type 1 or 2 diabetes, chronic heart failure, poor kidney function, or current treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between trial arms.

• The hierarchical seven primary endpoints were:
• Death, with cardiovascular death ranked first followed by noncardiovascular death
• Hospitalization because of heart failure, with adjudicated first followed by investigator-reported HF
• Nonfatal MI
• Atrial fibrillation/flutter event
• New diagnosis of type 2 diabetes
• New York Heart Association functional class at the last visit
• Drop in body weight of at least 5% at the last visit

The key secondary endpoint, Dr. James said, was the primary outcome minus the body weight component, with time to first occurrence of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death.

When the seventh factor, body weight decrease, was removed, the differential narrowed: 20.3% versus 16.9% (P = .015). When two or more variables were removed from the composite, the differences were not statistically significant.

For 11 secondary and exploratory outcomes, ranging from CV death or hospitalization for HF to all-cause hospitalization, the outcomes were similar in both the dapagliflozin and placebo groups across the board.

However, the dapagliflozin patients had about half the rate of developing diabetes, compared with the placebo group: 2.1 % versus 3.9%.  

The trial initially used the composite of CV death and hospitalization for HF as the primary endpoint, but switched to the seven-item composite endpoint in February because the number of primary composite outcomes was substantially lower than anticipated, Dr. James said.

He acknowledged the study was underpowered for the low-risk population it enrolled. “But if you extended the trial to a larger population and enriched it with a higher-risk population you would probably see an effect,” he said.

“The cardiometabolic benefit was consistent across all prespecified subgroups and there were no new safety concerns,” Dr. James told the attendees. “Clinical event rates were low with no significant difference between randomized groups.”
 

Not a ringing endorsement

But for invited discussant Stephen D. Wiviott, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, the DAPA-MI trial result isn’t quite a ringing endorsement of SGLT2 inhibition in these patients.

Richard M. Kirkner/MDedge News

“From my perspective, DAPA-MI does not suggest a new mandate to expand SGLT2 inhibition to an isolated MI population without other SGLT2 inhibitor indications,” Dr. Wiviott told attendees. “But it does support the safety of its use among patients with acute coronary syndromes.”

However, “these results do not indicate a lack of clinical benefit in patients with prior MI and any of those previously identified conditions – a history of diabetes, coronary heart failure or chronic kidney disease – where SGLT2 inhibition remains a pillar of guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Wiviott said.

In an interview, Dr. Wiviott described the trial design as a “hybrid” in that it used a registry but then added, in his words, “some of the bells and whistles that we have with normal cardiovascular clinical trials.” He further explained: “This is a nice combination of those two things, where they use that as part of the endpoint for the trial but they’re able to add in some of the pieces that you would in a regular registration pathway trial.”

The trial design could serve as a model for future pragmatic therapeutic trials in acute MI, he said, but he acknowledged that DAPA-MI was underpowered to discern many key outcomes.

“They anticipated they were going to have a rate of around 11% of events so they needed to enroll about 6,000 people, but somewhere in the middle of the trial they saw the rate was 2.5%, not 11%, so they had to completely change the trial,” he said of the DAPA-MI investigators.

But an appropriately powered study of SGLT2 inhibition in this population would need about 28,000 patients. “This would be an enormous trial to actually clinically power, so in my sense it’s not going to happen,” Dr. Wiviott said.

The DAPA-MI trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. James disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen. Dr. Wiviott disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Icon Clinical, Novo Nordisk, and Varian.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Giving the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) to patients with acute myocardial infarction and impaired left ventricular systolic function but no diabetes or chronic heart failure significantly improved a composite of cardiovascular outcomes, a European registry-based randomized trial suggests.

In presenting these results from the DAPA-MI trial, Stefan James, MD, of Uppsala University (Sweden), noted that patients randomly assigned to dapagliflozin 10 mg along with the standard of care had improved outcomes based on a composite of seven primary endpoints, which the trial described as the hierarchical “win ratio” composite outcomes, compared with patients randomized to placebo plus standard of care.

Richard M. Kirkner/MDedge News

“The ‘win ratio’ tells us that there’s a 34% higher likelihood of patients having a better cardiometabolic outcome with dapagliflozin vs placebo in terms of the seven components,” James said in an interview. The win ratio was achieved in 32.9% of dapagliflozin patients versus 24.6% of placebo (P < .001).

Dr. James presented the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and they were published online simultaneously in NEJM Evidence.
 

Lower-risk patients 

DAPA-MI enrolled 4,017 patients from the SWEDEHEART and Myocardial Ischemia National Audit Project registries in Sweden and the United Kingdom, randomly assigning patients to dapagliflozin 10 mg or placebo along with guideline-directed therapy for both groups.

Eligible patients were hemodynamically stable, had an acute MI within 10 days of enrollment, and impaired left ventricular systolic function or a Q-wave MI. Exclusion criteria included history of either type 1 or 2 diabetes, chronic heart failure, poor kidney function, or current treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between trial arms.

• The hierarchical seven primary endpoints were:
• Death, with cardiovascular death ranked first followed by noncardiovascular death
• Hospitalization because of heart failure, with adjudicated first followed by investigator-reported HF
• Nonfatal MI
• Atrial fibrillation/flutter event
• New diagnosis of type 2 diabetes
• New York Heart Association functional class at the last visit
• Drop in body weight of at least 5% at the last visit

The key secondary endpoint, Dr. James said, was the primary outcome minus the body weight component, with time to first occurrence of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death.

When the seventh factor, body weight decrease, was removed, the differential narrowed: 20.3% versus 16.9% (P = .015). When two or more variables were removed from the composite, the differences were not statistically significant.

For 11 secondary and exploratory outcomes, ranging from CV death or hospitalization for HF to all-cause hospitalization, the outcomes were similar in both the dapagliflozin and placebo groups across the board.

However, the dapagliflozin patients had about half the rate of developing diabetes, compared with the placebo group: 2.1 % versus 3.9%.  

The trial initially used the composite of CV death and hospitalization for HF as the primary endpoint, but switched to the seven-item composite endpoint in February because the number of primary composite outcomes was substantially lower than anticipated, Dr. James said.

He acknowledged the study was underpowered for the low-risk population it enrolled. “But if you extended the trial to a larger population and enriched it with a higher-risk population you would probably see an effect,” he said.

“The cardiometabolic benefit was consistent across all prespecified subgroups and there were no new safety concerns,” Dr. James told the attendees. “Clinical event rates were low with no significant difference between randomized groups.”
 

Not a ringing endorsement

But for invited discussant Stephen D. Wiviott, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, the DAPA-MI trial result isn’t quite a ringing endorsement of SGLT2 inhibition in these patients.

Richard M. Kirkner/MDedge News

“From my perspective, DAPA-MI does not suggest a new mandate to expand SGLT2 inhibition to an isolated MI population without other SGLT2 inhibitor indications,” Dr. Wiviott told attendees. “But it does support the safety of its use among patients with acute coronary syndromes.”

However, “these results do not indicate a lack of clinical benefit in patients with prior MI and any of those previously identified conditions – a history of diabetes, coronary heart failure or chronic kidney disease – where SGLT2 inhibition remains a pillar of guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Wiviott said.

In an interview, Dr. Wiviott described the trial design as a “hybrid” in that it used a registry but then added, in his words, “some of the bells and whistles that we have with normal cardiovascular clinical trials.” He further explained: “This is a nice combination of those two things, where they use that as part of the endpoint for the trial but they’re able to add in some of the pieces that you would in a regular registration pathway trial.”

The trial design could serve as a model for future pragmatic therapeutic trials in acute MI, he said, but he acknowledged that DAPA-MI was underpowered to discern many key outcomes.

“They anticipated they were going to have a rate of around 11% of events so they needed to enroll about 6,000 people, but somewhere in the middle of the trial they saw the rate was 2.5%, not 11%, so they had to completely change the trial,” he said of the DAPA-MI investigators.

But an appropriately powered study of SGLT2 inhibition in this population would need about 28,000 patients. “This would be an enormous trial to actually clinically power, so in my sense it’s not going to happen,” Dr. Wiviott said.

The DAPA-MI trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. James disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen. Dr. Wiviott disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Icon Clinical, Novo Nordisk, and Varian.
 

With the emergence of pirfenidone and nintedanib over the past decade or so, pulmonologists now have at their disposal two breakthrough antifibrotic agents for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Artfoliophoto/Thinkstock

But these two drugs have a number of shortcomings that a host of investigative agents are aiming to address. For one, while pirfenidone and nintedanib have been shown to slow disease progression and improve symptoms, they don’t stop or reverse the disease. Also, a large number of patients with IPF don’t tolerate these drugs well. And, their high cost is a barrier for many patients.

Joyce Lee, MD

“There are no curative therapies that improve lung function or improve symptoms, so there remains a very large unmet need in terms of therapies or interventions that have better efficacy, better long-term tolerability, and that improve symptoms and quality of life for our patients with IPF disease,” said Joyce Lee, MD, associate professor of medicine–pulmonary at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and senior medical adviser for research and health care quality for the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation.

The National Institutes of Health estimates that more than 30,000 new cases of IPF are diagnosed in the United States annually, and as many as 3 million people have the disease worldwide. The 5-year survival rate is less than 40% after diagnosis. Bloomberg News reported that more than 80 pharmaceutical companies are working on IPF treatments. iHealthcareAnalyst estimates the global market for IPF will reach $10.1 billion by 2029 thanks to rapidly increasing prevalence and incidence with age, premium-priced drugs, and rapid approval of new treatments.
 

The perils of phase 3 studies

A search on ClinicalTrials.gov turned up 89 investigative IPF treatments in human trials. However, the search for alternatives can be perilous. “In the field, we have gotten used to promising phase 2 studies that failed in the phase 3 stage of development,” Dr. Lee said. “I don’t hold my breath these days just in terms of trying to predict whether or not the efficacy will be present in the phase 3 clinical trial.”

Three notable phase 3 flops include the ISABELA 1 and 2 trials of the autotaxin inhibitor ziritaxestat, which failed to meet their primary endpoint and were halted early (JAMA. 2023;329:1567-78). The phase 3 ZEPHYRUS-1 trial failed to show any benefit of pamrevlumab to improve percent predicted force vital capacity (ppFVC) at week 48, causing discontinuation of a second phase 3 trial. The phase 3 STARSCAPE-OLE study of intravenous recombinant human pentraxin-2 was terminated earlier this year when the sponsor, Hoffmann-LaRoche, decided it was unable to meet its primary objective (NCT04594707).

In the meantime, these six other phase 3 programs in IPF are still in the field:

Anlotinib. A phase 2 and 3 trial in China is evaluating 1-year outcomes of once-daily oral anlotinib for treatment of IPF/progressive fibrosis-interstitial lung disease (PF-ILDS) (NCT05828953). Anlotinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that targets four factors: vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGR), fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFR), and c-kit. It’s approved in China as a third-line therapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BI 101550. Enrollment in the FIBRONEER-IPF trial commenced last fall (NCT05321069), with completion scheduled for late next year. BI 1015550 is an oral phosphodiesterase 4B (PDE4B) inhibitor. FIBRONEER-ILD is a separate phase 3 trial in fibrosing idiopathic lung disease (NCT05321082). In both trials, the primary endpoint is the absolute change from baseline in FVC at week 52.

BMS-986278. Results of a phase 2 trial showed that twice-daily treatment with oral BMS-986278 60 mg over 26 weeks reduced the rate of decline in  ppFVC by 69% vs. placebo. The phase 3 ALOFT trial has been approved but hasn’t yet started recruiting patients (NCT06003426). BMS-986278 is a lysophosphatidic acid receptor 1 (LPA1) antagonist.

Lanxoprazole. Commonly used to treat and prevent gastrointestinal problems like stomach ulcers and esophagitis, this oral proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is the focus of a trial in the United Kingdom evaluating if PPIs can slow the progression of IPF (NCT04965298).

N-acetylcysteine (NAC). The PRECISIONS trial is evaluating the effect of NAC plus standard-of-care treatment in IPF patients who have the TOLLIP rs3750910 TT genotype (NCT04300920). Participants receive 600 mg NAC orally or matched placebo three times daily for 24 months. Trial completion is scheduled for 2025.

Treprostinil. Already approved to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension and pulmonary hypertension associated with interstitial lung disease, inhaled Treprostinil is the subject of the TETON 1 and 2 trials evaluating its impact on ppFVC after 52 weeks of treatment (NCT04708782, NCT05255991).
 

Phase 2 candidates

The primary endpoint in most of the phase 2 trials is change in ppFVC capacity from baseline to week 24. The following investigative therapies are in phase 2 trials:

Bexotegrast (PLN-74809), an oral, small molecule, dual-selective inhibitor of alphav/beta6 and alphav/beta1  (NCT04396756).

BBT-877, described as a potent autotaxin (ATX) inhibitor, demonstrated its ability to inhibit lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) production by as much as 90 percent (NCT05483907).

CC-90001, an oral, once-daily c-Jun N-terminal kinases (JNK) inhibitor. JNKs have been implicated in the underlying mechanisms of fibrosis, including epithelial cell death, inflammation and polarization of profibrotic macrophages, fibroblast activation, and collagen production (NCT03142191).

C21 targets the underlying fibrosis in IPF by stimulating the protective arm of the renin-angiotensin system. It also has an upstream effect by promoting alveolar repair by which it can reduce fibrosis formation, stabilize disease, and increase lung capacity (NCT04533022).

CSL312 (garadacimab) is a humanized anti-FXIIa monoclonal antibody administrated intravenously (NCT05130970).

Cudetaxestat, a noncompetitive autotaxin inhibitor (NCT05373914).

Bersiposocin/DWN12088, an inhibitor of prolyl-tRNA synthetase 1 (PARS1), which is suspected to control the pathologic accumulation of collagen containing high amounts of proline in fibrotic diseases (NCT05389215).

ENV-101, a small-molecule inhibitor of the Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway, which plays a key role in IPF. This agent was originally developed to target Hh-driven cancers (NCT04968574).

GKT137831 (setanaxib) inhibits nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase (NOX) isoforms. (NCT03865927).

HZN-825, a lysophosphatidic acid receptor 1 (LPAR1) antagonist. (NCT05032066)

Ifetroban, a potent and selective thromboxane-prostanoid receptor (TPr) antagonist, which exhibits a high affinity for TPr on platelets, vascular and airway smooth muscle, and fibroblasts, and lacks agonistic activity (NCT05571059).

INS018_055, a small-molecule, oral antifibrotic candidate notable for being the first entirely AI-generated drug to enter phase 2 trials. Trial enrollment started in October (NCT05975983, NCT05983920)

Jaktinib dihydrochloride monohydrate, an oral JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 inhibitor (NCT04312594).

Leramistat, an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agent (NCT05951296).

LTP001, an oral, selectively deuterated form of pirfenidone designed to retain the antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory activity of pirfenidone with a differentiated pharmacokinetic profile (NCT05497284, NCT05321420).

ME-015 (suplatast tosilate) aims to stabilize ion channels in the neuronal endings in the lungs that mediate IPF-related cough (NCT05983471).

Nalbuphine, a small-molecule, dual-mechanism treatment for chronic cough in IPF. It acts as both a mu opioid receptor antagonist and a kappa opioid receptor agonist (NCT05964335). The CANAL trial, complete last year, is evaluating an extended-release formulation (NCT04030026).

NP-120 (ifenprodil), a small-molecule N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, specifically targets the NMDA-type subunit 2B (GluN2B) (NCT04318704).

Orvepitant, a selective antagonist for the NK₁ receptor, is being evaluated to treat IPF-related cough (NCT05815089).

RXC007 (zelasudil), a Rho-associated coiled-coil–containing protein kinase 2 (ROCK2) selective inhibitor, was granted FDA orphan drug designation in August 2023 (NCT05570058).

Saracatinib, a selective Src kinase inhibitor originally developed for oncological indications (NCT04598919).

SHR-1906, an intravenous treatment, inhibits binding of a target protein to a variety of cytokines and growth factors, affects downstream signaling pathways, and reduces cell proliferation and migration (NCT05722964).

TTI-101, an oral, small-molecule inhibitor of signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT3), which has been found to accumulate in the lungs of IPF patients (NCT05671835).

VAY736 (lanalumab), a BAFF-R inhibitor (NCT03287414).

Vixarelimab, a human monoclonal oncastatin M receptor beta antibody (NCT05785624).

Some investigative programs, however, didn’t make it out of phase 2. The trial evaluating inhaled GB0139, a selective functional antagonist of G-protein–coupled receptor 84, which plays a key role in fibrosis, failed to meet its primary endpoint (NCT03832946). Likewise, oral GLPG1205 failed to show a significant difference in FVC decline vs. placebo (NCT03725852). The program to develop SAR156597, also known as romilkimab, was halted (NCT02345070). ND-L02-s0201n, an siRNA oligonucleotide drug designed to inhibit heat shock protein 47 (HSP47), which regulates collagen synthesis and secretion that causes fibrosis, didn’t show the expected efficacy (NCT03538301).
 

Phase 1 trials

No fewer than 27 phase 1 trials are evaluating investigative treatments for IPF, many in the early phase or not yet recruiting. According to GlobalData, phase 1 drugs for IPF have a 66% chance of moving onto phase 2. Among the advanced phase 1 trials that have gained corporate backing are:

9MW3811, an anti–interleukin-11 monoclonal antibody IV injection (NCT05912049).

ANG-3070, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting platelet-derived growth factor (PDGFR) alpha and beta (NCT05387785).

C106, an angiotensin II type 2 receptor agonist (NCT05427253).

HuL001, which targets alpha-enolase (NCT04540770).

LTI-03, a Caveolin-1 (Cav1)-related peptide designed to restore Cav1 expression in lung tissue (NCT05954988).

ORIN1001, a first-in-class small molecule that selectively blocks the inositol requiring enzyme 1alphase (IRE1) RNAse and blocks X-box binding protein 1 (XBP1) activation (NCT04643769).

PRS-220 is an orally inhaled anticalin protein targeting connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) (NTC05473533).

TRK-250, a single-strand, long-chain nucleic acid that selectively suppresses expression of transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-beta1) protein (NCT03727802).

“While we have therapies that we’re able to give patients, we need to do more and we need to do better,” Dr. Lee said. “We’re all hopeful the next phase 3 clinical trial will be something that will help change the treatment paradigm for our patients. We’re very patient, and hopefully those that are interested in improving this treatment landscape will continue to persist.”

Dr. Lee disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Pliant Therapeutics, Blade Therapeutics, United Therapeutics, Eleven P15. and Avalyn Pharma.

With the emergence of pirfenidone and nintedanib over the past decade or so, pulmonologists now have at their disposal two breakthrough antifibrotic agents for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Artfoliophoto/Thinkstock

But these two drugs have a number of shortcomings that a host of investigative agents are aiming to address. For one, while pirfenidone and nintedanib have been shown to slow disease progression and improve symptoms, they don’t stop or reverse the disease. Also, a large number of patients with IPF don’t tolerate these drugs well. And, their high cost is a barrier for many patients.

Joyce Lee, MD

“There are no curative therapies that improve lung function or improve symptoms, so there remains a very large unmet need in terms of therapies or interventions that have better efficacy, better long-term tolerability, and that improve symptoms and quality of life for our patients with IPF disease,” said Joyce Lee, MD, associate professor of medicine–pulmonary at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and senior medical adviser for research and health care quality for the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation.

The National Institutes of Health estimates that more than 30,000 new cases of IPF are diagnosed in the United States annually, and as many as 3 million people have the disease worldwide. The 5-year survival rate is less than 40% after diagnosis. Bloomberg News reported that more than 80 pharmaceutical companies are working on IPF treatments. iHealthcareAnalyst estimates the global market for IPF will reach $10.1 billion by 2029 thanks to rapidly increasing prevalence and incidence with age, premium-priced drugs, and rapid approval of new treatments.
 

The perils of phase 3 studies

A search on ClinicalTrials.gov turned up 89 investigative IPF treatments in human trials. However, the search for alternatives can be perilous. “In the field, we have gotten used to promising phase 2 studies that failed in the phase 3 stage of development,” Dr. Lee said. “I don’t hold my breath these days just in terms of trying to predict whether or not the efficacy will be present in the phase 3 clinical trial.”

Three notable phase 3 flops include the ISABELA 1 and 2 trials of the autotaxin inhibitor ziritaxestat, which failed to meet their primary endpoint and were halted early (JAMA. 2023;329:1567-78). The phase 3 ZEPHYRUS-1 trial failed to show any benefit of pamrevlumab to improve percent predicted force vital capacity (ppFVC) at week 48, causing discontinuation of a second phase 3 trial. The phase 3 STARSCAPE-OLE study of intravenous recombinant human pentraxin-2 was terminated earlier this year when the sponsor, Hoffmann-LaRoche, decided it was unable to meet its primary objective (NCT04594707).

In the meantime, these six other phase 3 programs in IPF are still in the field:

Anlotinib. A phase 2 and 3 trial in China is evaluating 1-year outcomes of once-daily oral anlotinib for treatment of IPF/progressive fibrosis-interstitial lung disease (PF-ILDS) (NCT05828953). Anlotinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that targets four factors: vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGR), fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFR), and c-kit. It’s approved in China as a third-line therapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BI 101550. Enrollment in the FIBRONEER-IPF trial commenced last fall (NCT05321069), with completion scheduled for late next year. BI 1015550 is an oral phosphodiesterase 4B (PDE4B) inhibitor. FIBRONEER-ILD is a separate phase 3 trial in fibrosing idiopathic lung disease (NCT05321082). In both trials, the primary endpoint is the absolute change from baseline in FVC at week 52.

BMS-986278. Results of a phase 2 trial showed that twice-daily treatment with oral BMS-986278 60 mg over 26 weeks reduced the rate of decline in  ppFVC by 69% vs. placebo. The phase 3 ALOFT trial has been approved but hasn’t yet started recruiting patients (NCT06003426). BMS-986278 is a lysophosphatidic acid receptor 1 (LPA1) antagonist.

Lanxoprazole. Commonly used to treat and prevent gastrointestinal problems like stomach ulcers and esophagitis, this oral proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is the focus of a trial in the United Kingdom evaluating if PPIs can slow the progression of IPF (NCT04965298).

N-acetylcysteine (NAC). The PRECISIONS trial is evaluating the effect of NAC plus standard-of-care treatment in IPF patients who have the TOLLIP rs3750910 TT genotype (NCT04300920). Participants receive 600 mg NAC orally or matched placebo three times daily for 24 months. Trial completion is scheduled for 2025.

Treprostinil. Already approved to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension and pulmonary hypertension associated with interstitial lung disease, inhaled Treprostinil is the subject of the TETON 1 and 2 trials evaluating its impact on ppFVC after 52 weeks of treatment (NCT04708782, NCT05255991).
 

Phase 2 candidates

The primary endpoint in most of the phase 2 trials is change in ppFVC capacity from baseline to week 24. The following investigative therapies are in phase 2 trials:

Bexotegrast (PLN-74809), an oral, small molecule, dual-selective inhibitor of alphav/beta6 and alphav/beta1  (NCT04396756).

BBT-877, described as a potent autotaxin (ATX) inhibitor, demonstrated its ability to inhibit lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) production by as much as 90 percent (NCT05483907).

CC-90001, an oral, once-daily c-Jun N-terminal kinases (JNK) inhibitor. JNKs have been implicated in the underlying mechanisms of fibrosis, including epithelial cell death, inflammation and polarization of profibrotic macrophages, fibroblast activation, and collagen production (NCT03142191).

C21 targets the underlying fibrosis in IPF by stimulating the protective arm of the renin-angiotensin system. It also has an upstream effect by promoting alveolar repair by which it can reduce fibrosis formation, stabilize disease, and increase lung capacity (NCT04533022).

CSL312 (garadacimab) is a humanized anti-FXIIa monoclonal antibody administrated intravenously (NCT05130970).

Cudetaxestat, a noncompetitive autotaxin inhibitor (NCT05373914).

Bersiposocin/DWN12088, an inhibitor of prolyl-tRNA synthetase 1 (PARS1), which is suspected to control the pathologic accumulation of collagen containing high amounts of proline in fibrotic diseases (NCT05389215).

ENV-101, a small-molecule inhibitor of the Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway, which plays a key role in IPF. This agent was originally developed to target Hh-driven cancers (NCT04968574).

GKT137831 (setanaxib) inhibits nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase (NOX) isoforms. (NCT03865927).

HZN-825, a lysophosphatidic acid receptor 1 (LPAR1) antagonist. (NCT05032066)

Ifetroban, a potent and selective thromboxane-prostanoid receptor (TPr) antagonist, which exhibits a high affinity for TPr on platelets, vascular and airway smooth muscle, and fibroblasts, and lacks agonistic activity (NCT05571059).

INS018_055, a small-molecule, oral antifibrotic candidate notable for being the first entirely AI-generated drug to enter phase 2 trials. Trial enrollment started in October (NCT05975983, NCT05983920)

Jaktinib dihydrochloride monohydrate, an oral JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 inhibitor (NCT04312594).

Leramistat, an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agent (NCT05951296).

LTP001, an oral, selectively deuterated form of pirfenidone designed to retain the antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory activity of pirfenidone with a differentiated pharmacokinetic profile (NCT05497284, NCT05321420).

ME-015 (suplatast tosilate) aims to stabilize ion channels in the neuronal endings in the lungs that mediate IPF-related cough (NCT05983471).

Nalbuphine, a small-molecule, dual-mechanism treatment for chronic cough in IPF. It acts as both a mu opioid receptor antagonist and a kappa opioid receptor agonist (NCT05964335). The CANAL trial, complete last year, is evaluating an extended-release formulation (NCT04030026).

NP-120 (ifenprodil), a small-molecule N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, specifically targets the NMDA-type subunit 2B (GluN2B) (NCT04318704).

Orvepitant, a selective antagonist for the NK₁ receptor, is being evaluated to treat IPF-related cough (NCT05815089).

RXC007 (zelasudil), a Rho-associated coiled-coil–containing protein kinase 2 (ROCK2) selective inhibitor, was granted FDA orphan drug designation in August 2023 (NCT05570058).

Saracatinib, a selective Src kinase inhibitor originally developed for oncological indications (NCT04598919).

SHR-1906, an intravenous treatment, inhibits binding of a target protein to a variety of cytokines and growth factors, affects downstream signaling pathways, and reduces cell proliferation and migration (NCT05722964).

TTI-101, an oral, small-molecule inhibitor of signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT3), which has been found to accumulate in the lungs of IPF patients (NCT05671835).

VAY736 (lanalumab), a BAFF-R inhibitor (NCT03287414).

Vixarelimab, a human monoclonal oncastatin M receptor beta antibody (NCT05785624).

Some investigative programs, however, didn’t make it out of phase 2. The trial evaluating inhaled GB0139, a selective functional antagonist of G-protein–coupled receptor 84, which plays a key role in fibrosis, failed to meet its primary endpoint (NCT03832946). Likewise, oral GLPG1205 failed to show a significant difference in FVC decline vs. placebo (NCT03725852). The program to develop SAR156597, also known as romilkimab, was halted (NCT02345070). ND-L02-s0201n, an siRNA oligonucleotide drug designed to inhibit heat shock protein 47 (HSP47), which regulates collagen synthesis and secretion that causes fibrosis, didn’t show the expected efficacy (NCT03538301).
 

Phase 1 trials

No fewer than 27 phase 1 trials are evaluating investigative treatments for IPF, many in the early phase or not yet recruiting. According to GlobalData, phase 1 drugs for IPF have a 66% chance of moving onto phase 2. Among the advanced phase 1 trials that have gained corporate backing are:

9MW3811, an anti–interleukin-11 monoclonal antibody IV injection (NCT05912049).

ANG-3070, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting platelet-derived growth factor (PDGFR) alpha and beta (NCT05387785).

C106, an angiotensin II type 2 receptor agonist (NCT05427253).

HuL001, which targets alpha-enolase (NCT04540770).

LTI-03, a Caveolin-1 (Cav1)-related peptide designed to restore Cav1 expression in lung tissue (NCT05954988).

ORIN1001, a first-in-class small molecule that selectively blocks the inositol requiring enzyme 1alphase (IRE1) RNAse and blocks X-box binding protein 1 (XBP1) activation (NCT04643769).

PRS-220 is an orally inhaled anticalin protein targeting connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) (NTC05473533).

TRK-250, a single-strand, long-chain nucleic acid that selectively suppresses expression of transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-beta1) protein (NCT03727802).

“While we have therapies that we’re able to give patients, we need to do more and we need to do better,” Dr. Lee said. “We’re all hopeful the next phase 3 clinical trial will be something that will help change the treatment paradigm for our patients. We’re very patient, and hopefully those that are interested in improving this treatment landscape will continue to persist.”

Dr. Lee disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Pliant Therapeutics, Blade Therapeutics, United Therapeutics, Eleven P15. and Avalyn Pharma.

With the emergence of pirfenidone and nintedanib over the past decade or so, pulmonologists now have at their disposal two breakthrough antifibrotic agents for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Artfoliophoto/Thinkstock

But these two drugs have a number of shortcomings that a host of investigative agents are aiming to address. For one, while pirfenidone and nintedanib have been shown to slow disease progression and improve symptoms, they don’t stop or reverse the disease. Also, a large number of patients with IPF don’t tolerate these drugs well. And, their high cost is a barrier for many patients.

Joyce Lee, MD

“There are no curative therapies that improve lung function or improve symptoms, so there remains a very large unmet need in terms of therapies or interventions that have better efficacy, better long-term tolerability, and that improve symptoms and quality of life for our patients with IPF disease,” said Joyce Lee, MD, associate professor of medicine–pulmonary at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and senior medical adviser for research and health care quality for the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation.

The National Institutes of Health estimates that more than 30,000 new cases of IPF are diagnosed in the United States annually, and as many as 3 million people have the disease worldwide. The 5-year survival rate is less than 40% after diagnosis. Bloomberg News reported that more than 80 pharmaceutical companies are working on IPF treatments. iHealthcareAnalyst estimates the global market for IPF will reach $10.1 billion by 2029 thanks to rapidly increasing prevalence and incidence with age, premium-priced drugs, and rapid approval of new treatments.
 

The perils of phase 3 studies

A search on ClinicalTrials.gov turned up 89 investigative IPF treatments in human trials. However, the search for alternatives can be perilous. “In the field, we have gotten used to promising phase 2 studies that failed in the phase 3 stage of development,” Dr. Lee said. “I don’t hold my breath these days just in terms of trying to predict whether or not the efficacy will be present in the phase 3 clinical trial.”

Three notable phase 3 flops include the ISABELA 1 and 2 trials of the autotaxin inhibitor ziritaxestat, which failed to meet their primary endpoint and were halted early (JAMA. 2023;329:1567-78). The phase 3 ZEPHYRUS-1 trial failed to show any benefit of pamrevlumab to improve percent predicted force vital capacity (ppFVC) at week 48, causing discontinuation of a second phase 3 trial. The phase 3 STARSCAPE-OLE study of intravenous recombinant human pentraxin-2 was terminated earlier this year when the sponsor, Hoffmann-LaRoche, decided it was unable to meet its primary objective (NCT04594707).

In the meantime, these six other phase 3 programs in IPF are still in the field:

Anlotinib. A phase 2 and 3 trial in China is evaluating 1-year outcomes of once-daily oral anlotinib for treatment of IPF/progressive fibrosis-interstitial lung disease (PF-ILDS) (NCT05828953). Anlotinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that targets four factors: vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGR), fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFR), and c-kit. It’s approved in China as a third-line therapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BI 101550. Enrollment in the FIBRONEER-IPF trial commenced last fall (NCT05321069), with completion scheduled for late next year. BI 1015550 is an oral phosphodiesterase 4B (PDE4B) inhibitor. FIBRONEER-ILD is a separate phase 3 trial in fibrosing idiopathic lung disease (NCT05321082). In both trials, the primary endpoint is the absolute change from baseline in FVC at week 52.

BMS-986278. Results of a phase 2 trial showed that twice-daily treatment with oral BMS-986278 60 mg over 26 weeks reduced the rate of decline in  ppFVC by 69% vs. placebo. The phase 3 ALOFT trial has been approved but hasn’t yet started recruiting patients (NCT06003426). BMS-986278 is a lysophosphatidic acid receptor 1 (LPA1) antagonist.

Lanxoprazole. Commonly used to treat and prevent gastrointestinal problems like stomach ulcers and esophagitis, this oral proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is the focus of a trial in the United Kingdom evaluating if PPIs can slow the progression of IPF (NCT04965298).

N-acetylcysteine (NAC). The PRECISIONS trial is evaluating the effect of NAC plus standard-of-care treatment in IPF patients who have the TOLLIP rs3750910 TT genotype (NCT04300920). Participants receive 600 mg NAC orally or matched placebo three times daily for 24 months. Trial completion is scheduled for 2025.

Treprostinil. Already approved to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension and pulmonary hypertension associated with interstitial lung disease, inhaled Treprostinil is the subject of the TETON 1 and 2 trials evaluating its impact on ppFVC after 52 weeks of treatment (NCT04708782, NCT05255991).
 

Phase 2 candidates

The primary endpoint in most of the phase 2 trials is change in ppFVC capacity from baseline to week 24. The following investigative therapies are in phase 2 trials:

Bexotegrast (PLN-74809), an oral, small molecule, dual-selective inhibitor of alphav/beta6 and alphav/beta1  (NCT04396756).

BBT-877, described as a potent autotaxin (ATX) inhibitor, demonstrated its ability to inhibit lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) production by as much as 90 percent (NCT05483907).

CC-90001, an oral, once-daily c-Jun N-terminal kinases (JNK) inhibitor. JNKs have been implicated in the underlying mechanisms of fibrosis, including epithelial cell death, inflammation and polarization of profibrotic macrophages, fibroblast activation, and collagen production (NCT03142191).

C21 targets the underlying fibrosis in IPF by stimulating the protective arm of the renin-angiotensin system. It also has an upstream effect by promoting alveolar repair by which it can reduce fibrosis formation, stabilize disease, and increase lung capacity (NCT04533022).

CSL312 (garadacimab) is a humanized anti-FXIIa monoclonal antibody administrated intravenously (NCT05130970).

Cudetaxestat, a noncompetitive autotaxin inhibitor (NCT05373914).

Bersiposocin/DWN12088, an inhibitor of prolyl-tRNA synthetase 1 (PARS1), which is suspected to control the pathologic accumulation of collagen containing high amounts of proline in fibrotic diseases (NCT05389215).

ENV-101, a small-molecule inhibitor of the Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway, which plays a key role in IPF. This agent was originally developed to target Hh-driven cancers (NCT04968574).

GKT137831 (setanaxib) inhibits nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase (NOX) isoforms. (NCT03865927).

HZN-825, a lysophosphatidic acid receptor 1 (LPAR1) antagonist. (NCT05032066)

Ifetroban, a potent and selective thromboxane-prostanoid receptor (TPr) antagonist, which exhibits a high affinity for TPr on platelets, vascular and airway smooth muscle, and fibroblasts, and lacks agonistic activity (NCT05571059).

INS018_055, a small-molecule, oral antifibrotic candidate notable for being the first entirely AI-generated drug to enter phase 2 trials. Trial enrollment started in October (NCT05975983, NCT05983920)

Jaktinib dihydrochloride monohydrate, an oral JAK1, JAK2, and JAK3 inhibitor (NCT04312594).

Leramistat, an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agent (NCT05951296).

LTP001, an oral, selectively deuterated form of pirfenidone designed to retain the antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory activity of pirfenidone with a differentiated pharmacokinetic profile (NCT05497284, NCT05321420).

ME-015 (suplatast tosilate) aims to stabilize ion channels in the neuronal endings in the lungs that mediate IPF-related cough (NCT05983471).

Nalbuphine, a small-molecule, dual-mechanism treatment for chronic cough in IPF. It acts as both a mu opioid receptor antagonist and a kappa opioid receptor agonist (NCT05964335). The CANAL trial, complete last year, is evaluating an extended-release formulation (NCT04030026).

NP-120 (ifenprodil), a small-molecule N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, specifically targets the NMDA-type subunit 2B (GluN2B) (NCT04318704).

Orvepitant, a selective antagonist for the NK₁ receptor, is being evaluated to treat IPF-related cough (NCT05815089).

RXC007 (zelasudil), a Rho-associated coiled-coil–containing protein kinase 2 (ROCK2) selective inhibitor, was granted FDA orphan drug designation in August 2023 (NCT05570058).

Saracatinib, a selective Src kinase inhibitor originally developed for oncological indications (NCT04598919).

SHR-1906, an intravenous treatment, inhibits binding of a target protein to a variety of cytokines and growth factors, affects downstream signaling pathways, and reduces cell proliferation and migration (NCT05722964).

TTI-101, an oral, small-molecule inhibitor of signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT3), which has been found to accumulate in the lungs of IPF patients (NCT05671835).

VAY736 (lanalumab), a BAFF-R inhibitor (NCT03287414).

Vixarelimab, a human monoclonal oncastatin M receptor beta antibody (NCT05785624).

Some investigative programs, however, didn’t make it out of phase 2. The trial evaluating inhaled GB0139, a selective functional antagonist of G-protein–coupled receptor 84, which plays a key role in fibrosis, failed to meet its primary endpoint (NCT03832946). Likewise, oral GLPG1205 failed to show a significant difference in FVC decline vs. placebo (NCT03725852). The program to develop SAR156597, also known as romilkimab, was halted (NCT02345070). ND-L02-s0201n, an siRNA oligonucleotide drug designed to inhibit heat shock protein 47 (HSP47), which regulates collagen synthesis and secretion that causes fibrosis, didn’t show the expected efficacy (NCT03538301).
 

Phase 1 trials

No fewer than 27 phase 1 trials are evaluating investigative treatments for IPF, many in the early phase or not yet recruiting. According to GlobalData, phase 1 drugs for IPF have a 66% chance of moving onto phase 2. Among the advanced phase 1 trials that have gained corporate backing are:

9MW3811, an anti–interleukin-11 monoclonal antibody IV injection (NCT05912049).

ANG-3070, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting platelet-derived growth factor (PDGFR) alpha and beta (NCT05387785).

C106, an angiotensin II type 2 receptor agonist (NCT05427253).

HuL001, which targets alpha-enolase (NCT04540770).

LTI-03, a Caveolin-1 (Cav1)-related peptide designed to restore Cav1 expression in lung tissue (NCT05954988).

ORIN1001, a first-in-class small molecule that selectively blocks the inositol requiring enzyme 1alphase (IRE1) RNAse and blocks X-box binding protein 1 (XBP1) activation (NCT04643769).

PRS-220 is an orally inhaled anticalin protein targeting connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) (NTC05473533).

TRK-250, a single-strand, long-chain nucleic acid that selectively suppresses expression of transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-beta1) protein (NCT03727802).

“While we have therapies that we’re able to give patients, we need to do more and we need to do better,” Dr. Lee said. “We’re all hopeful the next phase 3 clinical trial will be something that will help change the treatment paradigm for our patients. We’re very patient, and hopefully those that are interested in improving this treatment landscape will continue to persist.”

Dr. Lee disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Pliant Therapeutics, Blade Therapeutics, United Therapeutics, Eleven P15. and Avalyn Pharma.

Moving from one residence to another after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) significantly increases the risk for death or transition to a long-term care facility as an end-of-life measure, data suggest.

In a prospective study that followed more than 3,000 patients with AMI over 2 decades, each residential move was associated with a 12% higher rate of death.

“This study determined that residential mobility was more important than any other social factor that we studied,” investigator David Alter, MD, PhD, chair of cardiovascular and metabolic research at the University Health Network–Toronto Rehabilitation Institute and associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moving and mortality

“There’s been very little work, surprisingly, on what happens when individuals move from community to community,” said Dr. Alter. “It is that movement from community to community that is a factor within the social context that needs to be explored better. To the best of our knowledge, up until our study, it has been studied very briefly in the literature.”

The prospective cohort study sample included 3,369 patients who had an AMI between Dec. 1, 1999, and March 30, 2023. The investigators followed participants until death or the last available follow-up date of March 30, 2020. They defined a residential move as a relocation from one postal code region to another.

The investigators drew data from multiple sources, including the prospective, observational Socio-Economic Status and Acute Myocardial Infarction study, which encompassed more than 35,000 patient life-years following hospitalization for a first heart attack in Ontario. Mortality data were collected from the Ontario Registered Persons Data Base. Other sources included Statistics Canada for information on neighborhood income, the Canadian Institutes for Health Information for patients’ clinical factors and comorbidities, and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) database for physician visits. Information on long-term care admissions came from the Continuous Care Reporting System-Long Term Care, OHIP, and the Ontario Drugs Benefit databases, the latter of which also provided information on medication prescriptions for individuals aged 65 years and older.

Patients’ ages ranged from 19 to 101 years (median age, 65 years). About 69% of patients were men. Of the study population, 1,828 patients (54.3%) had at least one residential move during the study period. Approximately 87% died in the community or moved from home into a long-term care facility as an end-of-life destination. Overall, 84.8% of patients who were admitted to long-term care facilities died.

The study also tracked the socioeconomic status of persons living in the postal code regions from and to which patients moved. About 32% of patients moved to a neighborhood with a lower socioeconomic status, and 30.5% moved to an area with a higher socioeconomic status.

Each residential move was associated with a 12% higher rate of death and a 26% higher rate of long-term institutionalization for end-of-life care. In unadjusted analyses, the rate of death was almost double for those who moved more frequently: 44.3% for those who moved two or more times versus 24.8% for those who moved once in 10 years.

Accounting for a multitude of variables, such as the socioeconomic status of areas that patients moved between, is a strength of the study, said Dr. Alter. But the study lacked information about why people moved.

“Where this study has a huge amount of strength is that it was designed specifically to really understand a patient’s clinical and psychosocial profile at the start of their journey, their first AMI. But the fact that we took it from heart attack onward is also a strength because it characterizes and anchors a clinical context in which we were following patients out,” said Dr. Alter.
 

‘An important marker’

In a comment, Paul Oh, MD, medical director of the cardiovascular disease prevention and rehabilitation program at University Health Network, said: “This is a very well-designed study and analysis from a cohort that has provided important insights about the role of socioeconomic factors and long-term outcomes post MI over many years.” Dr. Oh did not participate in the study.

“A few covariates that could impact on outcomes, like institutionalization, were not available to include in adjusted analyses – e.g., functional status, frailty, mild cognitive changes, and availability of social supports in the home,” he said.

The findings add another variable that cardiologists who care for post-MI patients need to be aware of, Dr. Oh added. “Clinicians need better awareness that the need to change residence is an important marker of changing health status and may portend end-of-life events in the near future. The need to change residence can signal an important change in physical, cognitive, and social circumstances that needs to be further explored during clinical encounters, with the goal of identifying and addressing any potentially reversible issues and identifying additional supports that may help that individual continue to live independently in their own home.”

The study was supported by ICES, which receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health. The investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oh serves on research boards for Lilly and Novartis and receives research funding from Apple.

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

Moving from one residence to another after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) significantly increases the risk for death or transition to a long-term care facility as an end-of-life measure, data suggest.

In a prospective study that followed more than 3,000 patients with AMI over 2 decades, each residential move was associated with a 12% higher rate of death.

“This study determined that residential mobility was more important than any other social factor that we studied,” investigator David Alter, MD, PhD, chair of cardiovascular and metabolic research at the University Health Network–Toronto Rehabilitation Institute and associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moving and mortality

“There’s been very little work, surprisingly, on what happens when individuals move from community to community,” said Dr. Alter. “It is that movement from community to community that is a factor within the social context that needs to be explored better. To the best of our knowledge, up until our study, it has been studied very briefly in the literature.”

The prospective cohort study sample included 3,369 patients who had an AMI between Dec. 1, 1999, and March 30, 2023. The investigators followed participants until death or the last available follow-up date of March 30, 2020. They defined a residential move as a relocation from one postal code region to another.

The investigators drew data from multiple sources, including the prospective, observational Socio-Economic Status and Acute Myocardial Infarction study, which encompassed more than 35,000 patient life-years following hospitalization for a first heart attack in Ontario. Mortality data were collected from the Ontario Registered Persons Data Base. Other sources included Statistics Canada for information on neighborhood income, the Canadian Institutes for Health Information for patients’ clinical factors and comorbidities, and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) database for physician visits. Information on long-term care admissions came from the Continuous Care Reporting System-Long Term Care, OHIP, and the Ontario Drugs Benefit databases, the latter of which also provided information on medication prescriptions for individuals aged 65 years and older.

Patients’ ages ranged from 19 to 101 years (median age, 65 years). About 69% of patients were men. Of the study population, 1,828 patients (54.3%) had at least one residential move during the study period. Approximately 87% died in the community or moved from home into a long-term care facility as an end-of-life destination. Overall, 84.8% of patients who were admitted to long-term care facilities died.

The study also tracked the socioeconomic status of persons living in the postal code regions from and to which patients moved. About 32% of patients moved to a neighborhood with a lower socioeconomic status, and 30.5% moved to an area with a higher socioeconomic status.

Each residential move was associated with a 12% higher rate of death and a 26% higher rate of long-term institutionalization for end-of-life care. In unadjusted analyses, the rate of death was almost double for those who moved more frequently: 44.3% for those who moved two or more times versus 24.8% for those who moved once in 10 years.

Accounting for a multitude of variables, such as the socioeconomic status of areas that patients moved between, is a strength of the study, said Dr. Alter. But the study lacked information about why people moved.

“Where this study has a huge amount of strength is that it was designed specifically to really understand a patient’s clinical and psychosocial profile at the start of their journey, their first AMI. But the fact that we took it from heart attack onward is also a strength because it characterizes and anchors a clinical context in which we were following patients out,” said Dr. Alter.
 

‘An important marker’

In a comment, Paul Oh, MD, medical director of the cardiovascular disease prevention and rehabilitation program at University Health Network, said: “This is a very well-designed study and analysis from a cohort that has provided important insights about the role of socioeconomic factors and long-term outcomes post MI over many years.” Dr. Oh did not participate in the study.

“A few covariates that could impact on outcomes, like institutionalization, were not available to include in adjusted analyses – e.g., functional status, frailty, mild cognitive changes, and availability of social supports in the home,” he said.

The findings add another variable that cardiologists who care for post-MI patients need to be aware of, Dr. Oh added. “Clinicians need better awareness that the need to change residence is an important marker of changing health status and may portend end-of-life events in the near future. The need to change residence can signal an important change in physical, cognitive, and social circumstances that needs to be further explored during clinical encounters, with the goal of identifying and addressing any potentially reversible issues and identifying additional supports that may help that individual continue to live independently in their own home.”

The study was supported by ICES, which receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health. The investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oh serves on research boards for Lilly and Novartis and receives research funding from Apple.

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

Moving from one residence to another after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) significantly increases the risk for death or transition to a long-term care facility as an end-of-life measure, data suggest.

In a prospective study that followed more than 3,000 patients with AMI over 2 decades, each residential move was associated with a 12% higher rate of death.

“This study determined that residential mobility was more important than any other social factor that we studied,” investigator David Alter, MD, PhD, chair of cardiovascular and metabolic research at the University Health Network–Toronto Rehabilitation Institute and associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moving and mortality

“There’s been very little work, surprisingly, on what happens when individuals move from community to community,” said Dr. Alter. “It is that movement from community to community that is a factor within the social context that needs to be explored better. To the best of our knowledge, up until our study, it has been studied very briefly in the literature.”

The prospective cohort study sample included 3,369 patients who had an AMI between Dec. 1, 1999, and March 30, 2023. The investigators followed participants until death or the last available follow-up date of March 30, 2020. They defined a residential move as a relocation from one postal code region to another.

The investigators drew data from multiple sources, including the prospective, observational Socio-Economic Status and Acute Myocardial Infarction study, which encompassed more than 35,000 patient life-years following hospitalization for a first heart attack in Ontario. Mortality data were collected from the Ontario Registered Persons Data Base. Other sources included Statistics Canada for information on neighborhood income, the Canadian Institutes for Health Information for patients’ clinical factors and comorbidities, and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) database for physician visits. Information on long-term care admissions came from the Continuous Care Reporting System-Long Term Care, OHIP, and the Ontario Drugs Benefit databases, the latter of which also provided information on medication prescriptions for individuals aged 65 years and older.

Patients’ ages ranged from 19 to 101 years (median age, 65 years). About 69% of patients were men. Of the study population, 1,828 patients (54.3%) had at least one residential move during the study period. Approximately 87% died in the community or moved from home into a long-term care facility as an end-of-life destination. Overall, 84.8% of patients who were admitted to long-term care facilities died.

The study also tracked the socioeconomic status of persons living in the postal code regions from and to which patients moved. About 32% of patients moved to a neighborhood with a lower socioeconomic status, and 30.5% moved to an area with a higher socioeconomic status.

Each residential move was associated with a 12% higher rate of death and a 26% higher rate of long-term institutionalization for end-of-life care. In unadjusted analyses, the rate of death was almost double for those who moved more frequently: 44.3% for those who moved two or more times versus 24.8% for those who moved once in 10 years.

Accounting for a multitude of variables, such as the socioeconomic status of areas that patients moved between, is a strength of the study, said Dr. Alter. But the study lacked information about why people moved.

“Where this study has a huge amount of strength is that it was designed specifically to really understand a patient’s clinical and psychosocial profile at the start of their journey, their first AMI. But the fact that we took it from heart attack onward is also a strength because it characterizes and anchors a clinical context in which we were following patients out,” said Dr. Alter.
 

‘An important marker’

In a comment, Paul Oh, MD, medical director of the cardiovascular disease prevention and rehabilitation program at University Health Network, said: “This is a very well-designed study and analysis from a cohort that has provided important insights about the role of socioeconomic factors and long-term outcomes post MI over many years.” Dr. Oh did not participate in the study.

“A few covariates that could impact on outcomes, like institutionalization, were not available to include in adjusted analyses – e.g., functional status, frailty, mild cognitive changes, and availability of social supports in the home,” he said.

The findings add another variable that cardiologists who care for post-MI patients need to be aware of, Dr. Oh added. “Clinicians need better awareness that the need to change residence is an important marker of changing health status and may portend end-of-life events in the near future. The need to change residence can signal an important change in physical, cognitive, and social circumstances that needs to be further explored during clinical encounters, with the goal of identifying and addressing any potentially reversible issues and identifying additional supports that may help that individual continue to live independently in their own home.”

The study was supported by ICES, which receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health. The investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oh serves on research boards for Lilly and Novartis and receives research funding from Apple.

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

The anti–amyloid-beta monoclonal antibodies lecanemab and aducanumab have introduced a new class of drugs for targeting early stage Alzheimer’s disease, but fewer than 10% of older adults with early signs of the disease would meet eligibility requirements to receive either treatment, a cross sectional study has found.

Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.

Mayo Clinic

“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population

The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).

The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.

For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m² was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.

When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.

Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.

“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”

Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”

One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
 

Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
 

The anti–amyloid-beta monoclonal antibodies lecanemab and aducanumab have introduced a new class of drugs for targeting early stage Alzheimer’s disease, but fewer than 10% of older adults with early signs of the disease would meet eligibility requirements to receive either treatment, a cross sectional study has found.

Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.

Mayo Clinic

“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population

The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).

The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.

For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m² was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.

When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.

Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.

“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”

Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”

One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
 

Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
 

The anti–amyloid-beta monoclonal antibodies lecanemab and aducanumab have introduced a new class of drugs for targeting early stage Alzheimer’s disease, but fewer than 10% of older adults with early signs of the disease would meet eligibility requirements to receive either treatment, a cross sectional study has found.

Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.

Mayo Clinic

“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population

The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).

The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.

For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m² was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.

When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.

Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.

“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”

Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”

One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
 

Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
 

The utility of artificial intelligence in pulmonology has focused mainly on using image datasets to detect and diagnose lung malignancies, but now a growing number of AI models are emerging that apply machine learning to improve predictability for other pulmonary conditions, including pulmonary infections, pulmonary fibrosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

These applications are moving beyond the traditional AI model of collecting data from a multitude of images to cast a wider data net that includes electronic health records.

Also on the horizon, ChatGPT technology is poised to have an impact. But pulmonologists and their practices have a number of barriers to clear before they feel a meaningful impact from AI.

The imperative, said AI researcher Ishanu Chattopadhyay, PhD, is to create transformative models that can detect lung disease early on. Dr. Chattopadhyay, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and its Institute for Genomics and Systems Biology, and fellow researchers developed an AI algorithm that uses comorbidity signatures in electronic health records to screen for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (Nature Med. 2022 Sep 29. doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-02010-y).

“If you could do this when somebody walks into a primary care setting and they are barely suspecting something is going on with them or when they don’t have the typical risk factors, there is a certain fraction of these people who do have IPF and they will almost invariably be diagnosed late and/or misdiagnosed,” Dr. Chattopadhyay said, citing a study that found 55% of patients with IPF have had at least one misdiagnosis and 38% have two or more misdiagnoses (BMC Pulm Med. 2018 Jan 17. doi: 10.1186/s12890-017-0560-x).

Harnessing massive data sets

AI models cull data sets, whether banks of radiographic images or files in an EHR, to extract telltale signatures of a disease state. Dr. Chattopadhyay and his team’s model used three databases with almost 3 million participants and 54,247 positive cases of IPF. Hospitals in Scotland have deployed what they’ve claimed are the first AI models to predict COPD built with 55,000 patient records from a regional National Health Service database. Another AI model for staging COPD, developed by researchers in the United States and Romania, used more than 18,000 medical records from 588 patients to identify physiological signals predictive of COPD (Advanced Sci. 2023 Feb 19. doi: 10.1002/advs.202203485).

Said Dr. Chattopadhyay: “If I can bring in AI which doesn’t just look at radiological images but actually gets it back where someone walks into primary care using only the information that is available at that point in the patient files and asking for nothing more, it raises a flag reliably that gets you a pulmonary referral that will hopefully reduce the misdiagnosis and late diagnosis.”

Victor Tseng, MD, medical director for pulmonology at Ansible Health in Mountain View, Calif., who’s researching the potential of AI in pulmonology, speculated on what functions AI can perform in the clinic. “I think you will start to see much more interventional sort of clinically patient care–facing applications,” he said. That would include acting as a triage layer to direct patient queries to a nurse, physician, or another practitioner, providing patient instructions, serving as therapeutic software, coordinating care, integrating supply chain issues,” he said.

 

AI vs. spirometry for COPD

Researchers in the United States and Romania, led by Paul Bogdan, PhD, at the University of Southern California Viterbi School of Engineering, developed a model that predicted COPD with an accuracy of almost 99% (98.66%) and avoids many of the shortcomings of spirometry, Dr. Bogdan said.

USC Viterbi School of Engineering

The models developed by Dr. Bogdan and collaborators use a different principle than existing AI platforms, Dr. Bogdan said. They analyze the properties of the data. As he explained it, they exploit what he called the “geometry of these data” to make inferences and decisions on a patient’s risk for COPD.

“Deep learning is very good for images, for videos, but it doesn’t work that well for signals,” said Mihai Udrescu, PhD, one of the Romanian collaborators. “But if we process the data with the technique brought up by Paul [Bogdan] and his team at USC, deep learning also works well on physiological signals.”

Dr. Paul Bogdan

Said Dr. Bogdan, “Nobody thought about using physiological signals to predict COPD before this work. They used spirometry, but spirometry is cumbersome and several steps have to be performed in order to have an accurate spirometry.” His team’s AI models extract and analyze risk data based on 10 minutes of monitoring.

This technology also has the potential to improve accessibility of COPD screening, Dr. Udrescu said. “It can democratize the access to the health care because you don’t need to travel for 100 or 200 miles to see a specialist,” he said. “You just send an app to the mobile phone of a patient, the person puts on a smart watch and wears it for a couple of minutes and the data is either recorded locally or is transmitted and it is analyzed.” The computations can be done locally and in a matter of minutes, he said.

In Scotland, a 12-month feasibility study is underway to evaluate an AI model to identify COPD patients at greatest risk for adverse events. A press release from Lenus, the company developing the technology, said the study will use a COPD multidisciplinary team to consider real-time AI model outputs to enable proactive patient encounters and reduce emergency care visits.

Researchers in Paris built an AI model that showed a 68% accuracy in distinguishing people with asthma from people with COPD in administrative medical databases (BMC Pulmon Med. 2022 Sep 20. doi: 10.1186/s12890-022-02144-2). They found that asthma patients were younger than those with COPD (a mean of 49.9 vs. 72.1 years) and that COPD occurred mostly in men (68% vs. 33%). And an international team of researchers reported that an AI model that used chest CT scans determined that ever-smokers with COPD who met the imaging criteria for bronchiectasis were more prone to disease exacerbations (Radiology. 2022 Dec 13. doi: 10.1148/radiol.221109). 

 

AI in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

The AI model that Dr. Chattopadhyay and collaborators developed had an 88% accuracy in predicting IPF. The model, known as the zero-burden comorbidity risk score for IPF (ZCoR-IPF), identified IPF cases in adults age 45 and older 1-4 years sooner than in a variety of pulmonology practice settings.

The model accounted for about 700 different features of IPF, Dr. Chattopadhyay said, but it deviated from standard AI risk models in that it used a machine learning algorithm to extract disease features that aren’t well understood or even known. “We do not know what all the risk factors of IPF are,” he said. “People who don’t have all the risk factors still get IPF. So we have to step back from the raw EHR data from where the features are being generated automatically, and then you can apply standard ML tools.”

Researchers at Nagoya University in Japan also reported on an AI algorithm for predicting IPF that used 646,800 high-resolution CT images and medical records data from 1,068 patients. Their algorithm had an average diagnostic accuracy of 83.6% and, they reported, demonstrated good accuracy even in patients with signs of interstitial pneumonia or who had surgical lung biopsies (Respirology. 2022 Dec 13. doi: 10.1111/resp.14310).

 

Chat GPT: The next frontier in AI

Dr. Tseng last year led a group of researchers that fed questions from the United States Medical Licensing Exam to a ChatGPT model, which found it answered 60%-65% of questions correctly (PLOS Digit Health. 2023 Feb 9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198). As Dr. Tseng pointed out, that’s good enough to get a medical license.

It may be a matter of time before ChatGPT technology finds its way into the clinic, Dr. Tseng said. A quick ChatGPT query of how it could be used in medicine yielded 12 different answers, from patient triage to providing basic first aid instructions in an emergency.

Dr. Tseng, who’s pulmonology practice places an emphasis on virtual care delivery, went deeper than the ChatGPT answer. “If you’re a respiratory therapist and you’re trying to execute a complicated medical care plan written by a physician, there’s a natural disconnect between our language and their language,” he said. “What we have found is that GPT has significantly harmonized the care plan. And that’s amazing because you end up with this single-stream understanding of the care plan, where the language is halfway between a bedside clinician, like the respiratory therapist or nurse, and is also something that a physician can understand and take the bigger sort of direction of care from.”

 

Barriers to AI in clinic

Numerous barriers face widespread adoption of AI tools in the clinic, Dr. Tseng said, including physician and staff anxiety about learning new technology. “AI tools, for all purposes, are supposed to allay the cognitive burden and the tedium burden on clinicians, but end up actually costing more time,” he said.

Health care organizations will also need to retool for AI, a group of medical informatics and digital health experts, led by Laurie Lovett Novak, PhD, reported (JAMIA Open. 2023 May 3. doi: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad028). But it’s coming nonetheless, Dr. Novak, an associate professor of biomedical informatics at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“In the near future, managers in clinics and inpatient units will be overseeing care that involves numerous AI-based technologies, including predictive analytics, imaging tools, language models, and others,” she said. “Organizations need to support managers by implementing capabilities for algorithmo-vigilance.”

That would include dealing with what she called “algorithmic drift” – when the accuracy of an AI model wanes because of changes in the underlying data – and ensuring that models are unbiased and aren’t used in a way that contributes to inequities in health care. “These new organizational capabilities will demand new tools and new competencies,” she said. That would include policies and processes drawing guidance from medical societies for legal and regulatory direction for managers, staff training, and software documentation.

Dr. Tseng envisioned how AI would work in the clinic. “I personally think that, at some time in the near future, AI-driven care coordination, where the AI basically handles appointment scheduling, patient motivation, patient engagement and acts as their health navigator, will be superior to any human health navigator on the whole, only for the reason that AI is indefatigable,” Dr. Tseng said. “It doesn’t get tired, it doesn’t get burned out, and these health navigation care coordination roles are notoriously difficult.”

The physicians and researchers interviewed for this report had no relevant relationships to disclose.

The utility of artificial intelligence in pulmonology has focused mainly on using image datasets to detect and diagnose lung malignancies, but now a growing number of AI models are emerging that apply machine learning to improve predictability for other pulmonary conditions, including pulmonary infections, pulmonary fibrosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

These applications are moving beyond the traditional AI model of collecting data from a multitude of images to cast a wider data net that includes electronic health records.

Also on the horizon, ChatGPT technology is poised to have an impact. But pulmonologists and their practices have a number of barriers to clear before they feel a meaningful impact from AI.

The imperative, said AI researcher Ishanu Chattopadhyay, PhD, is to create transformative models that can detect lung disease early on. Dr. Chattopadhyay, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and its Institute for Genomics and Systems Biology, and fellow researchers developed an AI algorithm that uses comorbidity signatures in electronic health records to screen for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (Nature Med. 2022 Sep 29. doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-02010-y).

“If you could do this when somebody walks into a primary care setting and they are barely suspecting something is going on with them or when they don’t have the typical risk factors, there is a certain fraction of these people who do have IPF and they will almost invariably be diagnosed late and/or misdiagnosed,” Dr. Chattopadhyay said, citing a study that found 55% of patients with IPF have had at least one misdiagnosis and 38% have two or more misdiagnoses (BMC Pulm Med. 2018 Jan 17. doi: 10.1186/s12890-017-0560-x).

Harnessing massive data sets

AI models cull data sets, whether banks of radiographic images or files in an EHR, to extract telltale signatures of a disease state. Dr. Chattopadhyay and his team’s model used three databases with almost 3 million participants and 54,247 positive cases of IPF. Hospitals in Scotland have deployed what they’ve claimed are the first AI models to predict COPD built with 55,000 patient records from a regional National Health Service database. Another AI model for staging COPD, developed by researchers in the United States and Romania, used more than 18,000 medical records from 588 patients to identify physiological signals predictive of COPD (Advanced Sci. 2023 Feb 19. doi: 10.1002/advs.202203485).

Said Dr. Chattopadhyay: “If I can bring in AI which doesn’t just look at radiological images but actually gets it back where someone walks into primary care using only the information that is available at that point in the patient files and asking for nothing more, it raises a flag reliably that gets you a pulmonary referral that will hopefully reduce the misdiagnosis and late diagnosis.”

Victor Tseng, MD, medical director for pulmonology at Ansible Health in Mountain View, Calif., who’s researching the potential of AI in pulmonology, speculated on what functions AI can perform in the clinic. “I think you will start to see much more interventional sort of clinically patient care–facing applications,” he said. That would include acting as a triage layer to direct patient queries to a nurse, physician, or another practitioner, providing patient instructions, serving as therapeutic software, coordinating care, integrating supply chain issues,” he said.

 

AI vs. spirometry for COPD

Researchers in the United States and Romania, led by Paul Bogdan, PhD, at the University of Southern California Viterbi School of Engineering, developed a model that predicted COPD with an accuracy of almost 99% (98.66%) and avoids many of the shortcomings of spirometry, Dr. Bogdan said.

USC Viterbi School of Engineering

The models developed by Dr. Bogdan and collaborators use a different principle than existing AI platforms, Dr. Bogdan said. They analyze the properties of the data. As he explained it, they exploit what he called the “geometry of these data” to make inferences and decisions on a patient’s risk for COPD.

“Deep learning is very good for images, for videos, but it doesn’t work that well for signals,” said Mihai Udrescu, PhD, one of the Romanian collaborators. “But if we process the data with the technique brought up by Paul [Bogdan] and his team at USC, deep learning also works well on physiological signals.”

Dr. Paul Bogdan

Said Dr. Bogdan, “Nobody thought about using physiological signals to predict COPD before this work. They used spirometry, but spirometry is cumbersome and several steps have to be performed in order to have an accurate spirometry.” His team’s AI models extract and analyze risk data based on 10 minutes of monitoring.

This technology also has the potential to improve accessibility of COPD screening, Dr. Udrescu said. “It can democratize the access to the health care because you don’t need to travel for 100 or 200 miles to see a specialist,” he said. “You just send an app to the mobile phone of a patient, the person puts on a smart watch and wears it for a couple of minutes and the data is either recorded locally or is transmitted and it is analyzed.” The computations can be done locally and in a matter of minutes, he said.

In Scotland, a 12-month feasibility study is underway to evaluate an AI model to identify COPD patients at greatest risk for adverse events. A press release from Lenus, the company developing the technology, said the study will use a COPD multidisciplinary team to consider real-time AI model outputs to enable proactive patient encounters and reduce emergency care visits.

Researchers in Paris built an AI model that showed a 68% accuracy in distinguishing people with asthma from people with COPD in administrative medical databases (BMC Pulmon Med. 2022 Sep 20. doi: 10.1186/s12890-022-02144-2). They found that asthma patients were younger than those with COPD (a mean of 49.9 vs. 72.1 years) and that COPD occurred mostly in men (68% vs. 33%). And an international team of researchers reported that an AI model that used chest CT scans determined that ever-smokers with COPD who met the imaging criteria for bronchiectasis were more prone to disease exacerbations (Radiology. 2022 Dec 13. doi: 10.1148/radiol.221109). 

 

AI in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

The AI model that Dr. Chattopadhyay and collaborators developed had an 88% accuracy in predicting IPF. The model, known as the zero-burden comorbidity risk score for IPF (ZCoR-IPF), identified IPF cases in adults age 45 and older 1-4 years sooner than in a variety of pulmonology practice settings.

The model accounted for about 700 different features of IPF, Dr. Chattopadhyay said, but it deviated from standard AI risk models in that it used a machine learning algorithm to extract disease features that aren’t well understood or even known. “We do not know what all the risk factors of IPF are,” he said. “People who don’t have all the risk factors still get IPF. So we have to step back from the raw EHR data from where the features are being generated automatically, and then you can apply standard ML tools.”

Researchers at Nagoya University in Japan also reported on an AI algorithm for predicting IPF that used 646,800 high-resolution CT images and medical records data from 1,068 patients. Their algorithm had an average diagnostic accuracy of 83.6% and, they reported, demonstrated good accuracy even in patients with signs of interstitial pneumonia or who had surgical lung biopsies (Respirology. 2022 Dec 13. doi: 10.1111/resp.14310).

 

Chat GPT: The next frontier in AI

Dr. Tseng last year led a group of researchers that fed questions from the United States Medical Licensing Exam to a ChatGPT model, which found it answered 60%-65% of questions correctly (PLOS Digit Health. 2023 Feb 9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198). As Dr. Tseng pointed out, that’s good enough to get a medical license.

It may be a matter of time before ChatGPT technology finds its way into the clinic, Dr. Tseng said. A quick ChatGPT query of how it could be used in medicine yielded 12 different answers, from patient triage to providing basic first aid instructions in an emergency.

Dr. Tseng, who’s pulmonology practice places an emphasis on virtual care delivery, went deeper than the ChatGPT answer. “If you’re a respiratory therapist and you’re trying to execute a complicated medical care plan written by a physician, there’s a natural disconnect between our language and their language,” he said. “What we have found is that GPT has significantly harmonized the care plan. And that’s amazing because you end up with this single-stream understanding of the care plan, where the language is halfway between a bedside clinician, like the respiratory therapist or nurse, and is also something that a physician can understand and take the bigger sort of direction of care from.”

 

Barriers to AI in clinic

Numerous barriers face widespread adoption of AI tools in the clinic, Dr. Tseng said, including physician and staff anxiety about learning new technology. “AI tools, for all purposes, are supposed to allay the cognitive burden and the tedium burden on clinicians, but end up actually costing more time,” he said.

Health care organizations will also need to retool for AI, a group of medical informatics and digital health experts, led by Laurie Lovett Novak, PhD, reported (JAMIA Open. 2023 May 3. doi: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad028). But it’s coming nonetheless, Dr. Novak, an associate professor of biomedical informatics at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“In the near future, managers in clinics and inpatient units will be overseeing care that involves numerous AI-based technologies, including predictive analytics, imaging tools, language models, and others,” she said. “Organizations need to support managers by implementing capabilities for algorithmo-vigilance.”

That would include dealing with what she called “algorithmic drift” – when the accuracy of an AI model wanes because of changes in the underlying data – and ensuring that models are unbiased and aren’t used in a way that contributes to inequities in health care. “These new organizational capabilities will demand new tools and new competencies,” she said. That would include policies and processes drawing guidance from medical societies for legal and regulatory direction for managers, staff training, and software documentation.

Dr. Tseng envisioned how AI would work in the clinic. “I personally think that, at some time in the near future, AI-driven care coordination, where the AI basically handles appointment scheduling, patient motivation, patient engagement and acts as their health navigator, will be superior to any human health navigator on the whole, only for the reason that AI is indefatigable,” Dr. Tseng said. “It doesn’t get tired, it doesn’t get burned out, and these health navigation care coordination roles are notoriously difficult.”

The physicians and researchers interviewed for this report had no relevant relationships to disclose.

The utility of artificial intelligence in pulmonology has focused mainly on using image datasets to detect and diagnose lung malignancies, but now a growing number of AI models are emerging that apply machine learning to improve predictability for other pulmonary conditions, including pulmonary infections, pulmonary fibrosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

These applications are moving beyond the traditional AI model of collecting data from a multitude of images to cast a wider data net that includes electronic health records.

Also on the horizon, ChatGPT technology is poised to have an impact. But pulmonologists and their practices have a number of barriers to clear before they feel a meaningful impact from AI.

The imperative, said AI researcher Ishanu Chattopadhyay, PhD, is to create transformative models that can detect lung disease early on. Dr. Chattopadhyay, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and its Institute for Genomics and Systems Biology, and fellow researchers developed an AI algorithm that uses comorbidity signatures in electronic health records to screen for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (Nature Med. 2022 Sep 29. doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-02010-y).

“If you could do this when somebody walks into a primary care setting and they are barely suspecting something is going on with them or when they don’t have the typical risk factors, there is a certain fraction of these people who do have IPF and they will almost invariably be diagnosed late and/or misdiagnosed,” Dr. Chattopadhyay said, citing a study that found 55% of patients with IPF have had at least one misdiagnosis and 38% have two or more misdiagnoses (BMC Pulm Med. 2018 Jan 17. doi: 10.1186/s12890-017-0560-x).

Harnessing massive data sets

AI models cull data sets, whether banks of radiographic images or files in an EHR, to extract telltale signatures of a disease state. Dr. Chattopadhyay and his team’s model used three databases with almost 3 million participants and 54,247 positive cases of IPF. Hospitals in Scotland have deployed what they’ve claimed are the first AI models to predict COPD built with 55,000 patient records from a regional National Health Service database. Another AI model for staging COPD, developed by researchers in the United States and Romania, used more than 18,000 medical records from 588 patients to identify physiological signals predictive of COPD (Advanced Sci. 2023 Feb 19. doi: 10.1002/advs.202203485).

Said Dr. Chattopadhyay: “If I can bring in AI which doesn’t just look at radiological images but actually gets it back where someone walks into primary care using only the information that is available at that point in the patient files and asking for nothing more, it raises a flag reliably that gets you a pulmonary referral that will hopefully reduce the misdiagnosis and late diagnosis.”

Victor Tseng, MD, medical director for pulmonology at Ansible Health in Mountain View, Calif., who’s researching the potential of AI in pulmonology, speculated on what functions AI can perform in the clinic. “I think you will start to see much more interventional sort of clinically patient care–facing applications,” he said. That would include acting as a triage layer to direct patient queries to a nurse, physician, or another practitioner, providing patient instructions, serving as therapeutic software, coordinating care, integrating supply chain issues,” he said.

 

AI vs. spirometry for COPD

Researchers in the United States and Romania, led by Paul Bogdan, PhD, at the University of Southern California Viterbi School of Engineering, developed a model that predicted COPD with an accuracy of almost 99% (98.66%) and avoids many of the shortcomings of spirometry, Dr. Bogdan said.

USC Viterbi School of Engineering

The models developed by Dr. Bogdan and collaborators use a different principle than existing AI platforms, Dr. Bogdan said. They analyze the properties of the data. As he explained it, they exploit what he called the “geometry of these data” to make inferences and decisions on a patient’s risk for COPD.

“Deep learning is very good for images, for videos, but it doesn’t work that well for signals,” said Mihai Udrescu, PhD, one of the Romanian collaborators. “But if we process the data with the technique brought up by Paul [Bogdan] and his team at USC, deep learning also works well on physiological signals.”

Dr. Paul Bogdan

Said Dr. Bogdan, “Nobody thought about using physiological signals to predict COPD before this work. They used spirometry, but spirometry is cumbersome and several steps have to be performed in order to have an accurate spirometry.” His team’s AI models extract and analyze risk data based on 10 minutes of monitoring.

This technology also has the potential to improve accessibility of COPD screening, Dr. Udrescu said. “It can democratize the access to the health care because you don’t need to travel for 100 or 200 miles to see a specialist,” he said. “You just send an app to the mobile phone of a patient, the person puts on a smart watch and wears it for a couple of minutes and the data is either recorded locally or is transmitted and it is analyzed.” The computations can be done locally and in a matter of minutes, he said.

In Scotland, a 12-month feasibility study is underway to evaluate an AI model to identify COPD patients at greatest risk for adverse events. A press release from Lenus, the company developing the technology, said the study will use a COPD multidisciplinary team to consider real-time AI model outputs to enable proactive patient encounters and reduce emergency care visits.

Researchers in Paris built an AI model that showed a 68% accuracy in distinguishing people with asthma from people with COPD in administrative medical databases (BMC Pulmon Med. 2022 Sep 20. doi: 10.1186/s12890-022-02144-2). They found that asthma patients were younger than those with COPD (a mean of 49.9 vs. 72.1 years) and that COPD occurred mostly in men (68% vs. 33%). And an international team of researchers reported that an AI model that used chest CT scans determined that ever-smokers with COPD who met the imaging criteria for bronchiectasis were more prone to disease exacerbations (Radiology. 2022 Dec 13. doi: 10.1148/radiol.221109). 

 

AI in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

The AI model that Dr. Chattopadhyay and collaborators developed had an 88% accuracy in predicting IPF. The model, known as the zero-burden comorbidity risk score for IPF (ZCoR-IPF), identified IPF cases in adults age 45 and older 1-4 years sooner than in a variety of pulmonology practice settings.

The model accounted for about 700 different features of IPF, Dr. Chattopadhyay said, but it deviated from standard AI risk models in that it used a machine learning algorithm to extract disease features that aren’t well understood or even known. “We do not know what all the risk factors of IPF are,” he said. “People who don’t have all the risk factors still get IPF. So we have to step back from the raw EHR data from where the features are being generated automatically, and then you can apply standard ML tools.”

Researchers at Nagoya University in Japan also reported on an AI algorithm for predicting IPF that used 646,800 high-resolution CT images and medical records data from 1,068 patients. Their algorithm had an average diagnostic accuracy of 83.6% and, they reported, demonstrated good accuracy even in patients with signs of interstitial pneumonia or who had surgical lung biopsies (Respirology. 2022 Dec 13. doi: 10.1111/resp.14310).

 

Chat GPT: The next frontier in AI

Dr. Tseng last year led a group of researchers that fed questions from the United States Medical Licensing Exam to a ChatGPT model, which found it answered 60%-65% of questions correctly (PLOS Digit Health. 2023 Feb 9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198). As Dr. Tseng pointed out, that’s good enough to get a medical license.

It may be a matter of time before ChatGPT technology finds its way into the clinic, Dr. Tseng said. A quick ChatGPT query of how it could be used in medicine yielded 12 different answers, from patient triage to providing basic first aid instructions in an emergency.

Dr. Tseng, who’s pulmonology practice places an emphasis on virtual care delivery, went deeper than the ChatGPT answer. “If you’re a respiratory therapist and you’re trying to execute a complicated medical care plan written by a physician, there’s a natural disconnect between our language and their language,” he said. “What we have found is that GPT has significantly harmonized the care plan. And that’s amazing because you end up with this single-stream understanding of the care plan, where the language is halfway between a bedside clinician, like the respiratory therapist or nurse, and is also something that a physician can understand and take the bigger sort of direction of care from.”

 

Barriers to AI in clinic

Numerous barriers face widespread adoption of AI tools in the clinic, Dr. Tseng said, including physician and staff anxiety about learning new technology. “AI tools, for all purposes, are supposed to allay the cognitive burden and the tedium burden on clinicians, but end up actually costing more time,” he said.

Health care organizations will also need to retool for AI, a group of medical informatics and digital health experts, led by Laurie Lovett Novak, PhD, reported (JAMIA Open. 2023 May 3. doi: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad028). But it’s coming nonetheless, Dr. Novak, an associate professor of biomedical informatics at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“In the near future, managers in clinics and inpatient units will be overseeing care that involves numerous AI-based technologies, including predictive analytics, imaging tools, language models, and others,” she said. “Organizations need to support managers by implementing capabilities for algorithmo-vigilance.”

That would include dealing with what she called “algorithmic drift” – when the accuracy of an AI model wanes because of changes in the underlying data – and ensuring that models are unbiased and aren’t used in a way that contributes to inequities in health care. “These new organizational capabilities will demand new tools and new competencies,” she said. That would include policies and processes drawing guidance from medical societies for legal and regulatory direction for managers, staff training, and software documentation.

Dr. Tseng envisioned how AI would work in the clinic. “I personally think that, at some time in the near future, AI-driven care coordination, where the AI basically handles appointment scheduling, patient motivation, patient engagement and acts as their health navigator, will be superior to any human health navigator on the whole, only for the reason that AI is indefatigable,” Dr. Tseng said. “It doesn’t get tired, it doesn’t get burned out, and these health navigation care coordination roles are notoriously difficult.”

The physicians and researchers interviewed for this report had no relevant relationships to disclose.

Children’s intelligence quotient scores are not significantly different in the first months after concussion, compared with before concussion, data suggest.

In a multicenter study of almost 900 children with concussion or orthopedic injury, differences between groups in full-scale IQ (Cohen’s d = 0.13) and matrix reasoning scores (d = 0.16) were small.

“We draw the inference that IQ scores are unchanged, in the sense that they’re not different from [those of] kids with other types of injuries that don’t involve the brain,” said study author Keith Owen Yeates, PhD, Ronald and Irene Ward Chair in Pediatric Brain Injury and a professor of psychology at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published in Pediatrics.
 

A representative sample

The investigators analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies of children who were treated for concussion or mild orthopedic injury at two hospitals in the United States and five in Canada. Participants were aged 8-17 years and were recruited within 24 hours of the index event. Patients in the United States completed IQ and performance validity testing at 3-18 days after injury. Patients in Canada did so at 3 months after injury. The study used the short-form IQ test. The investigators included 866 children in their analysis.

Using linear modeling, Bayesian analysis, and multigroup factor analysis, the researchers found “very small group differences” in full-scale IQ scores between the two groups. Mean IQ was 104.95 for the concussion group and 106.08 for the orthopedic-injury group. Matrix reasoning scores were 52.28 and 53.81 for the concussion and orthopedic-injury groups, respectively.

Vocabulary scores did not differ between the two groups (53.25 for the concussion group and 53.27 for the orthopedic-injury group).

The study population is “pretty representative” from a demographic perspective, although it was predominantly White, said Dr. Yeates. “On the other hand, we did look at socioeconomic status, and that didn’t seem to alter the findings at all.”

The sample size is one of the study’s strengths, said Dr. Yeates. “Having 866 kids is far larger, I think, than just about any other study out there.” Drawing from seven children’s hospitals in North America is another strength. “Previous studies, in addition to having smaller samples, were from a single site and often recruited from a clinic population, not a representative group for a general population of kids with concussion.”

The findings must be interpreted precisely, however. “We don’t have actual preinjury data, so the more precise way of describing the findings is to say they’re not different from kids who are very similar to them demographically, have the same risk factors for injuries, and had a similar experience of a traumatic injury,” said Dr. Yeates. “The IQ scores for both groups are smack dab in the average range.”

Overall, the results are encouraging. “There’s been a lot of bad news in the media and in the science about concussion that worries patients, so it’s nice to be able to provide a little bit of balance,” said Dr. Yeates. “The message I give parents is that most kids recover within 2-4 weeks, and we’re much better now at predicting who’s going to [recover] and who isn’t, and that helps, too, so that we can focus our intervention on kids who are most at risk.”

Some children will have persisting symptoms, but evidence-based treatments are lacking. “I think that’ll be a really important direction for the future,” said Dr. Yeates.
 

Graduated return

Commenting on the findings, Michael Esser, MD, a pediatric neurologist at Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, and an associate professor in pediatrics at the University of Calgary, said that they can help allay parents’ concerns about concussions. “It can also be of help for clinicians who want to have evidence to reassure families and promote a graduated return to activities. In particular, the study would support the philosophy of a graduated return to school or work, after a brief period of rest, following concussion.” Dr. Esser did not participate in the study.

The research is also noteworthy because it acknowledges that the differences in the design and methodology used in prior studies may explain the apparent disagreement over how concussion may influence cognitive function.

“This is an important message,” said Dr. Esser. “Families struggle with determining the merit of a lot of information due to the myriad of social media comments about concussion and the risk for cognitive impairment. Therefore, it is important that conclusions with a significant implication are evaluated with a variety of approaches.”

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Yeates disclosed relationships with the American Psychological Association, Guilford Press, and Cambridge University Press. He has received grant funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institutes of Health, Brain Canada Foundation, and the National Football League Scientific Advisory Board. He also has relationships with the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, National Pediatric Rehabilitation Resource Center, Center for Pediatric Rehabilitation, and Virginia Tech University. Dr. Esser had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children’s intelligence quotient scores are not significantly different in the first months after concussion, compared with before concussion, data suggest.

In a multicenter study of almost 900 children with concussion or orthopedic injury, differences between groups in full-scale IQ (Cohen’s d = 0.13) and matrix reasoning scores (d = 0.16) were small.

“We draw the inference that IQ scores are unchanged, in the sense that they’re not different from [those of] kids with other types of injuries that don’t involve the brain,” said study author Keith Owen Yeates, PhD, Ronald and Irene Ward Chair in Pediatric Brain Injury and a professor of psychology at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published in Pediatrics.
 

A representative sample

The investigators analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies of children who were treated for concussion or mild orthopedic injury at two hospitals in the United States and five in Canada. Participants were aged 8-17 years and were recruited within 24 hours of the index event. Patients in the United States completed IQ and performance validity testing at 3-18 days after injury. Patients in Canada did so at 3 months after injury. The study used the short-form IQ test. The investigators included 866 children in their analysis.

Using linear modeling, Bayesian analysis, and multigroup factor analysis, the researchers found “very small group differences” in full-scale IQ scores between the two groups. Mean IQ was 104.95 for the concussion group and 106.08 for the orthopedic-injury group. Matrix reasoning scores were 52.28 and 53.81 for the concussion and orthopedic-injury groups, respectively.

Vocabulary scores did not differ between the two groups (53.25 for the concussion group and 53.27 for the orthopedic-injury group).

The study population is “pretty representative” from a demographic perspective, although it was predominantly White, said Dr. Yeates. “On the other hand, we did look at socioeconomic status, and that didn’t seem to alter the findings at all.”

The sample size is one of the study’s strengths, said Dr. Yeates. “Having 866 kids is far larger, I think, than just about any other study out there.” Drawing from seven children’s hospitals in North America is another strength. “Previous studies, in addition to having smaller samples, were from a single site and often recruited from a clinic population, not a representative group for a general population of kids with concussion.”

The findings must be interpreted precisely, however. “We don’t have actual preinjury data, so the more precise way of describing the findings is to say they’re not different from kids who are very similar to them demographically, have the same risk factors for injuries, and had a similar experience of a traumatic injury,” said Dr. Yeates. “The IQ scores for both groups are smack dab in the average range.”

Overall, the results are encouraging. “There’s been a lot of bad news in the media and in the science about concussion that worries patients, so it’s nice to be able to provide a little bit of balance,” said Dr. Yeates. “The message I give parents is that most kids recover within 2-4 weeks, and we’re much better now at predicting who’s going to [recover] and who isn’t, and that helps, too, so that we can focus our intervention on kids who are most at risk.”

Some children will have persisting symptoms, but evidence-based treatments are lacking. “I think that’ll be a really important direction for the future,” said Dr. Yeates.
 

Graduated return

Commenting on the findings, Michael Esser, MD, a pediatric neurologist at Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, and an associate professor in pediatrics at the University of Calgary, said that they can help allay parents’ concerns about concussions. “It can also be of help for clinicians who want to have evidence to reassure families and promote a graduated return to activities. In particular, the study would support the philosophy of a graduated return to school or work, after a brief period of rest, following concussion.” Dr. Esser did not participate in the study.

The research is also noteworthy because it acknowledges that the differences in the design and methodology used in prior studies may explain the apparent disagreement over how concussion may influence cognitive function.

“This is an important message,” said Dr. Esser. “Families struggle with determining the merit of a lot of information due to the myriad of social media comments about concussion and the risk for cognitive impairment. Therefore, it is important that conclusions with a significant implication are evaluated with a variety of approaches.”

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Yeates disclosed relationships with the American Psychological Association, Guilford Press, and Cambridge University Press. He has received grant funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institutes of Health, Brain Canada Foundation, and the National Football League Scientific Advisory Board. He also has relationships with the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, National Pediatric Rehabilitation Resource Center, Center for Pediatric Rehabilitation, and Virginia Tech University. Dr. Esser had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children’s intelligence quotient scores are not significantly different in the first months after concussion, compared with before concussion, data suggest.

In a multicenter study of almost 900 children with concussion or orthopedic injury, differences between groups in full-scale IQ (Cohen’s d = 0.13) and matrix reasoning scores (d = 0.16) were small.

“We draw the inference that IQ scores are unchanged, in the sense that they’re not different from [those of] kids with other types of injuries that don’t involve the brain,” said study author Keith Owen Yeates, PhD, Ronald and Irene Ward Chair in Pediatric Brain Injury and a professor of psychology at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published in Pediatrics.
 

A representative sample

The investigators analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies of children who were treated for concussion or mild orthopedic injury at two hospitals in the United States and five in Canada. Participants were aged 8-17 years and were recruited within 24 hours of the index event. Patients in the United States completed IQ and performance validity testing at 3-18 days after injury. Patients in Canada did so at 3 months after injury. The study used the short-form IQ test. The investigators included 866 children in their analysis.

Using linear modeling, Bayesian analysis, and multigroup factor analysis, the researchers found “very small group differences” in full-scale IQ scores between the two groups. Mean IQ was 104.95 for the concussion group and 106.08 for the orthopedic-injury group. Matrix reasoning scores were 52.28 and 53.81 for the concussion and orthopedic-injury groups, respectively.

Vocabulary scores did not differ between the two groups (53.25 for the concussion group and 53.27 for the orthopedic-injury group).

The study population is “pretty representative” from a demographic perspective, although it was predominantly White, said Dr. Yeates. “On the other hand, we did look at socioeconomic status, and that didn’t seem to alter the findings at all.”

The sample size is one of the study’s strengths, said Dr. Yeates. “Having 866 kids is far larger, I think, than just about any other study out there.” Drawing from seven children’s hospitals in North America is another strength. “Previous studies, in addition to having smaller samples, were from a single site and often recruited from a clinic population, not a representative group for a general population of kids with concussion.”

The findings must be interpreted precisely, however. “We don’t have actual preinjury data, so the more precise way of describing the findings is to say they’re not different from kids who are very similar to them demographically, have the same risk factors for injuries, and had a similar experience of a traumatic injury,” said Dr. Yeates. “The IQ scores for both groups are smack dab in the average range.”

Overall, the results are encouraging. “There’s been a lot of bad news in the media and in the science about concussion that worries patients, so it’s nice to be able to provide a little bit of balance,” said Dr. Yeates. “The message I give parents is that most kids recover within 2-4 weeks, and we’re much better now at predicting who’s going to [recover] and who isn’t, and that helps, too, so that we can focus our intervention on kids who are most at risk.”

Some children will have persisting symptoms, but evidence-based treatments are lacking. “I think that’ll be a really important direction for the future,” said Dr. Yeates.
 

Graduated return

Commenting on the findings, Michael Esser, MD, a pediatric neurologist at Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, and an associate professor in pediatrics at the University of Calgary, said that they can help allay parents’ concerns about concussions. “It can also be of help for clinicians who want to have evidence to reassure families and promote a graduated return to activities. In particular, the study would support the philosophy of a graduated return to school or work, after a brief period of rest, following concussion.” Dr. Esser did not participate in the study.

The research is also noteworthy because it acknowledges that the differences in the design and methodology used in prior studies may explain the apparent disagreement over how concussion may influence cognitive function.

“This is an important message,” said Dr. Esser. “Families struggle with determining the merit of a lot of information due to the myriad of social media comments about concussion and the risk for cognitive impairment. Therefore, it is important that conclusions with a significant implication are evaluated with a variety of approaches.”

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Yeates disclosed relationships with the American Psychological Association, Guilford Press, and Cambridge University Press. He has received grant funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institutes of Health, Brain Canada Foundation, and the National Football League Scientific Advisory Board. He also has relationships with the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, National Pediatric Rehabilitation Resource Center, Center for Pediatric Rehabilitation, and Virginia Tech University. Dr. Esser had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stable patients who have a diagnostic cardiac catheterization for multivessel disease or two-vessel proximal left anterior descending disease often have percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the same session, possibly without input from a multidisciplinary heart team, a new study suggests.

The study, a retrospective analysis of more than 8,000 catheterization procedures in New York State during 2018 and 2019, was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Among the stable patients with multivessel disease or left main (LM) disease who had PCI, 78.4% of PCIs were performed in the same session as their diagnostic catheterization procedure, known as ad hoc PCI, a “surprisingly high rate,” the authors wrote.

The 2011 clinical guidelines in place during the study period advised coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery as a class 1 recommendation for LM disease, whereas PCI is a lower-class recommendation (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e44-e-122), they noted.

“Ad hoc PCI can be inadvisable when guidelines indicate that patients can realize better outcomes with CABG surgery,” lead study author Edward L. Hannan, PhD, MS, said in an interview. “The issue is that ad hoc PCI eliminates the opportunity for a multidisciplinary heart team to evaluate the patient.”

Dr. Hannan is principal investigator for the cardiac services program at the New York State Department of Health in Albany and distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Albany School of Public Health.

The researchers analyzed data from two mandatory New York State PCI and cardiac surgery registries, the Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Reporting System and the Cardiac Surgery Reporting System. A total of 91,146 patients had an index PCI from Dec. 1, 2017, to Nov. 30, 2019.

The study included patients who had two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (PLAD) disease, three-vessel disease or unprotected LM disease. Exclusion criteria included a previous revascularization, among a host of other factors. The analysis also identified 10,122 patients who had coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in addition to the 8,196 patients who had PCI.

The percentage for ad hoc PCI ranged from 58.7% for those with unprotected LM disease to 85.4% for patients with two-vessel PLAD. Among the patients who had PCI for three-vessel disease, 76.7% had an ad hoc PCI.

Selected subgroups had lower ad hoc PCI rates. When patients who had a myocardial infarction within 1-7 days were excluded, the ad hoc percentage decreased slightly to 77.2%. PCI patients with diabetes were also less likely to have ad hoc PCI (75.7% vs. 80.4%, P < .0001), as were patients with compromised left ventricular ejection fraction (< 35%; 64.6% vs. 80.5%, P < .0001).

When all revascularizations – PCI plus CABG – were taken into account, the rate of ad hoc PCIs was 35.1%. Rates were 63.9% for patients with two-vessel PLAD disease, 32.4% for those with three-vessel disease, and 11.5% for patients with unprotected LM disease.

One potential disadvantage of ad hoc PCI, the authors noted, is that it doesn’t allow time for a multidisciplinary heart team to evaluate the patient for a different treatment, such as CABG or medical therapy. “This multidisciplinary team can evaluate all the pros and cons of different approaches, such as PCI vs. CABG surgery in this case,” Dr. Hannan said.

The study findings imply a potential overutilization of PCI and a greater likelihood of forgoing a more appropriate intervention, he said, “given that we have chosen for the study groups of patients who in general benefit more with CABG surgery.”

The results also showed variability in ad hoc PCI rates among hospitals and physicians. “They are large enough to suggest that there is a fairly large variation across the state in the use of heart teams,” he said.

For unprotected LM disease, the risk adjusted rate for hospitals of ad hoc PCIs among all PCIs ranged from 25.6% in the lowest quartile to 93.7% in the highest. Physician rates of ad hoc PCIs for the same indication, which were ranked by tertile, ranged from 22% for the lowest to 84.3% for the highest (P < .001).

One strength of the study, Dr. Hannan said, is that it is a large population-based study that excluded groups for whom an ad hoc PCI would be appropriate, such as emergency patients. One limitation is that it did not account for legitimate reasons for ad hoc PCI, including contraindications for CABG surgery and patient refusal of CABG surgery.

In an invited editorial comment, James C. Blankenship, MD, and Krishna Patel, MD, wrote that this study shows that “past criticisms of ad hoc PCI have had seemingly little effect.”

“The article provides a striking example of a difference between guideline-directed practice and real-life practice,” Dr. Blankenship said in an interview. “Guideline recommendations for the heart team approach are well known by interventionalists, so the findings of this study do not reflect ignorance of cardiologists.” Dr. Blankenship, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, is a coauthor of the 2011 PCI guidelines.

It’s more likely the study findings “reflect unconscious biases and sincere beliefs of patients and interventionalists that PCI rather than CABG is in patients’ best interests,” Dr. Blankenship said.

He noted the variation in practice across hospitals and individuals suggests an opportunity for improvement. “If the guidelines are correct, then perhaps interventionalists should be held accountable for making sure the heart team approach is followed,” he said. “Alternatively, perhaps a modified approach that guarantees patient-centered decision making and is ethically acceptable could be identified.”

The study received funding from the New York State Department of Health. Dr. Hannan and Dr. Blankenship and Dr. Patel have no relevant disclosures.

Stable patients who have a diagnostic cardiac catheterization for multivessel disease or two-vessel proximal left anterior descending disease often have percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the same session, possibly without input from a multidisciplinary heart team, a new study suggests.

The study, a retrospective analysis of more than 8,000 catheterization procedures in New York State during 2018 and 2019, was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Among the stable patients with multivessel disease or left main (LM) disease who had PCI, 78.4% of PCIs were performed in the same session as their diagnostic catheterization procedure, known as ad hoc PCI, a “surprisingly high rate,” the authors wrote.

The 2011 clinical guidelines in place during the study period advised coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery as a class 1 recommendation for LM disease, whereas PCI is a lower-class recommendation (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e44-e-122), they noted.

“Ad hoc PCI can be inadvisable when guidelines indicate that patients can realize better outcomes with CABG surgery,” lead study author Edward L. Hannan, PhD, MS, said in an interview. “The issue is that ad hoc PCI eliminates the opportunity for a multidisciplinary heart team to evaluate the patient.”

Dr. Hannan is principal investigator for the cardiac services program at the New York State Department of Health in Albany and distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Albany School of Public Health.

The researchers analyzed data from two mandatory New York State PCI and cardiac surgery registries, the Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Reporting System and the Cardiac Surgery Reporting System. A total of 91,146 patients had an index PCI from Dec. 1, 2017, to Nov. 30, 2019.

The study included patients who had two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (PLAD) disease, three-vessel disease or unprotected LM disease. Exclusion criteria included a previous revascularization, among a host of other factors. The analysis also identified 10,122 patients who had coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in addition to the 8,196 patients who had PCI.

The percentage for ad hoc PCI ranged from 58.7% for those with unprotected LM disease to 85.4% for patients with two-vessel PLAD. Among the patients who had PCI for three-vessel disease, 76.7% had an ad hoc PCI.

Selected subgroups had lower ad hoc PCI rates. When patients who had a myocardial infarction within 1-7 days were excluded, the ad hoc percentage decreased slightly to 77.2%. PCI patients with diabetes were also less likely to have ad hoc PCI (75.7% vs. 80.4%, P < .0001), as were patients with compromised left ventricular ejection fraction (< 35%; 64.6% vs. 80.5%, P < .0001).

When all revascularizations – PCI plus CABG – were taken into account, the rate of ad hoc PCIs was 35.1%. Rates were 63.9% for patients with two-vessel PLAD disease, 32.4% for those with three-vessel disease, and 11.5% for patients with unprotected LM disease.

One potential disadvantage of ad hoc PCI, the authors noted, is that it doesn’t allow time for a multidisciplinary heart team to evaluate the patient for a different treatment, such as CABG or medical therapy. “This multidisciplinary team can evaluate all the pros and cons of different approaches, such as PCI vs. CABG surgery in this case,” Dr. Hannan said.

The study findings imply a potential overutilization of PCI and a greater likelihood of forgoing a more appropriate intervention, he said, “given that we have chosen for the study groups of patients who in general benefit more with CABG surgery.”

The results also showed variability in ad hoc PCI rates among hospitals and physicians. “They are large enough to suggest that there is a fairly large variation across the state in the use of heart teams,” he said.

For unprotected LM disease, the risk adjusted rate for hospitals of ad hoc PCIs among all PCIs ranged from 25.6% in the lowest quartile to 93.7% in the highest. Physician rates of ad hoc PCIs for the same indication, which were ranked by tertile, ranged from 22% for the lowest to 84.3% for the highest (P < .001).

One strength of the study, Dr. Hannan said, is that it is a large population-based study that excluded groups for whom an ad hoc PCI would be appropriate, such as emergency patients. One limitation is that it did not account for legitimate reasons for ad hoc PCI, including contraindications for CABG surgery and patient refusal of CABG surgery.

In an invited editorial comment, James C. Blankenship, MD, and Krishna Patel, MD, wrote that this study shows that “past criticisms of ad hoc PCI have had seemingly little effect.”

“The article provides a striking example of a difference between guideline-directed practice and real-life practice,” Dr. Blankenship said in an interview. “Guideline recommendations for the heart team approach are well known by interventionalists, so the findings of this study do not reflect ignorance of cardiologists.” Dr. Blankenship, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, is a coauthor of the 2011 PCI guidelines.

It’s more likely the study findings “reflect unconscious biases and sincere beliefs of patients and interventionalists that PCI rather than CABG is in patients’ best interests,” Dr. Blankenship said.

He noted the variation in practice across hospitals and individuals suggests an opportunity for improvement. “If the guidelines are correct, then perhaps interventionalists should be held accountable for making sure the heart team approach is followed,” he said. “Alternatively, perhaps a modified approach that guarantees patient-centered decision making and is ethically acceptable could be identified.”

The study received funding from the New York State Department of Health. Dr. Hannan and Dr. Blankenship and Dr. Patel have no relevant disclosures.

Stable patients who have a diagnostic cardiac catheterization for multivessel disease or two-vessel proximal left anterior descending disease often have percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the same session, possibly without input from a multidisciplinary heart team, a new study suggests.

The study, a retrospective analysis of more than 8,000 catheterization procedures in New York State during 2018 and 2019, was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Among the stable patients with multivessel disease or left main (LM) disease who had PCI, 78.4% of PCIs were performed in the same session as their diagnostic catheterization procedure, known as ad hoc PCI, a “surprisingly high rate,” the authors wrote.

The 2011 clinical guidelines in place during the study period advised coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery as a class 1 recommendation for LM disease, whereas PCI is a lower-class recommendation (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e44-e-122), they noted.

“Ad hoc PCI can be inadvisable when guidelines indicate that patients can realize better outcomes with CABG surgery,” lead study author Edward L. Hannan, PhD, MS, said in an interview. “The issue is that ad hoc PCI eliminates the opportunity for a multidisciplinary heart team to evaluate the patient.”

Dr. Hannan is principal investigator for the cardiac services program at the New York State Department of Health in Albany and distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Albany School of Public Health.

The researchers analyzed data from two mandatory New York State PCI and cardiac surgery registries, the Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Reporting System and the Cardiac Surgery Reporting System. A total of 91,146 patients had an index PCI from Dec. 1, 2017, to Nov. 30, 2019.

The study included patients who had two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (PLAD) disease, three-vessel disease or unprotected LM disease. Exclusion criteria included a previous revascularization, among a host of other factors. The analysis also identified 10,122 patients who had coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in addition to the 8,196 patients who had PCI.

The percentage for ad hoc PCI ranged from 58.7% for those with unprotected LM disease to 85.4% for patients with two-vessel PLAD. Among the patients who had PCI for three-vessel disease, 76.7% had an ad hoc PCI.

Selected subgroups had lower ad hoc PCI rates. When patients who had a myocardial infarction within 1-7 days were excluded, the ad hoc percentage decreased slightly to 77.2%. PCI patients with diabetes were also less likely to have ad hoc PCI (75.7% vs. 80.4%, P < .0001), as were patients with compromised left ventricular ejection fraction (< 35%; 64.6% vs. 80.5%, P < .0001).

When all revascularizations – PCI plus CABG – were taken into account, the rate of ad hoc PCIs was 35.1%. Rates were 63.9% for patients with two-vessel PLAD disease, 32.4% for those with three-vessel disease, and 11.5% for patients with unprotected LM disease.

One potential disadvantage of ad hoc PCI, the authors noted, is that it doesn’t allow time for a multidisciplinary heart team to evaluate the patient for a different treatment, such as CABG or medical therapy. “This multidisciplinary team can evaluate all the pros and cons of different approaches, such as PCI vs. CABG surgery in this case,” Dr. Hannan said.

The study findings imply a potential overutilization of PCI and a greater likelihood of forgoing a more appropriate intervention, he said, “given that we have chosen for the study groups of patients who in general benefit more with CABG surgery.”

The results also showed variability in ad hoc PCI rates among hospitals and physicians. “They are large enough to suggest that there is a fairly large variation across the state in the use of heart teams,” he said.

For unprotected LM disease, the risk adjusted rate for hospitals of ad hoc PCIs among all PCIs ranged from 25.6% in the lowest quartile to 93.7% in the highest. Physician rates of ad hoc PCIs for the same indication, which were ranked by tertile, ranged from 22% for the lowest to 84.3% for the highest (P < .001).

One strength of the study, Dr. Hannan said, is that it is a large population-based study that excluded groups for whom an ad hoc PCI would be appropriate, such as emergency patients. One limitation is that it did not account for legitimate reasons for ad hoc PCI, including contraindications for CABG surgery and patient refusal of CABG surgery.

In an invited editorial comment, James C. Blankenship, MD, and Krishna Patel, MD, wrote that this study shows that “past criticisms of ad hoc PCI have had seemingly little effect.”

“The article provides a striking example of a difference between guideline-directed practice and real-life practice,” Dr. Blankenship said in an interview. “Guideline recommendations for the heart team approach are well known by interventionalists, so the findings of this study do not reflect ignorance of cardiologists.” Dr. Blankenship, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, is a coauthor of the 2011 PCI guidelines.

It’s more likely the study findings “reflect unconscious biases and sincere beliefs of patients and interventionalists that PCI rather than CABG is in patients’ best interests,” Dr. Blankenship said.

He noted the variation in practice across hospitals and individuals suggests an opportunity for improvement. “If the guidelines are correct, then perhaps interventionalists should be held accountable for making sure the heart team approach is followed,” he said. “Alternatively, perhaps a modified approach that guarantees patient-centered decision making and is ethically acceptable could be identified.”

The study received funding from the New York State Department of Health. Dr. Hannan and Dr. Blankenship and Dr. Patel have no relevant disclosures.

The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.

Potential in rheumatology

The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.

University of Wisconsin

The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.

She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.

However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.

“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”

However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.

Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.

Possibilities in dermatology

The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.

University of Pennsylvania

Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.

“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”

Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.

The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.

Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
 

Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?

Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.

Mayo Clinic

“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.

Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
 

The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.

Potential in rheumatology

The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.

University of Wisconsin

The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.

She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.

However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.

“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”

However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.

Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.

Possibilities in dermatology

The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.

University of Pennsylvania

Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.

“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”

Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.

The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.

Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
 

Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?

Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.

Mayo Clinic

“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.

Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
 

The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.

Potential in rheumatology

The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.

University of Wisconsin

The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.

She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.

However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.

“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”

However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.

Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.

Possibilities in dermatology

The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.

University of Pennsylvania

Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.

“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”

Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.

The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.

Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
 

Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?

Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.

Mayo Clinic

“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.

Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
 

PHOENIX – Post hoc analysis of the randomized TWILIGHT trial comparing ticagrelor alone with ticagrelor plus aspirin in high-risk patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) shows both regimens were similarly effective in preventing repeat revascularization after 1 year.

In TWILIGHT, the main findings of which were previously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 7,119 high-risk PCI patients on standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) of ticagrelor plus aspirin for 3 months were randomized to continuation of DAPT or to ticagrelor plus placebo for 12 months.

University of Oklahoma

The new post hoc analysis included 6,759 patients and shows the rates of clinically driven revascularization were similar between the two groups: 7.1% and 6.6% for the ticagrelor monotherapy and ticagrelor-based DAPT groups, respectively (P = .363).

The findings were presented at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. 

Three key findings come from the post hoc analysis, Usman Baber, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization lab and associate professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, who presented the findings, said in an interview.

“The first is that, over the 1-year follow-up of our trial, we found that a repeat revascularization event occurred in 6.7% of patients,” he said. “We found that a slight majority of these repeat revascularization events were due to events at the target lesion or target vessel; and we found that most of the repeat revascularization events actually occurred in patients without a concomitant acute coronary syndrome. In other words, these were essentially stable patients when they were getting their repeat revascularization.”

The second major finding was that these high-risk patients who had repeat revascularization were at three times greater risk for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), based on a multivariable adjusted model, Dr. Baber said.

“And then third is that ticagrelor on its own as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin was equally effective in preventing repeat revascularization events,” he said.
 

Repeat revascularization

The goal of the analysis was to focus on clinically driven repeat revascularization as an outcome, Dr. Baber said. The analysis also aimed to understand the association between repeat revascularization and subsequent risk.

Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularization (TLR); target vessel revascularization (TVR); MACCE, including clinically driven revascularization; and net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of MACCE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding.

The outcomes of all those endpoints, except for NACE, were similar, Dr. Baber said. “Overall, ticagrelor monotherapy, as expected, reduced rates of bleeding as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin,” he said. The rates of NACE were 12.2% versus 14.6%, respectively (P = .004). For BARC 2,3, or 5 bleeding, the rates were 3.4% versus 7.1% (P < .001).

The findings validated repeat revascularization as a meaningful endpoint, Dr. Baber said. “Certainly, we don’t elevate repeat revascularization as an endpoint to the same level as death or stroke, but certainly this analysis and some others prior to it highlight the fact that when these patients come back for repeat revascularization, even if they’re stable, they clearly are at elevated risk for future ischemic events,” he said.

One limitation of the analysis is that the data are from a clinical trial, “which renders the findings not as generalizable to the broader patients in a clinical practice,” he said. However, the TWILIGHT data are validated and adjusted for multiple risk factors.

“When patients come in and they have a repeat revascularization, should there be a consideration to placing them on more intensive antithrombotic therapy?” he asked. “Right now, if patients have a repeat revascularization event and they’re stable, guidelines and clinical practice usually calls for continuing clopidogrel, but again our study and others like it indicate these patients are at a higher thrombotic risk, so maybe there’s a rationale for at least a short course of a more potent antiplatelet agent in such patients.”

University of Washington

The post hoc findings confirm those of the primary TWILIGHT trial, Lorenzo Azzalini, MD, PhD, MSc, director of interventional cardiology research at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, said in an interview.

“It’s not surprising to find no difference between the two therapies with regard to unplanned revascularization,” he said. “It’s considered that only stent thrombosis can only actually be mitigated by the drugs being investigated in the trial; all the other ischemic endpoints reflect more chronic ischemia—TLR or known TVR—upon which ticagrelor and aspirin do not play any role.”

However, he added, “I still think this study provides useful information to the community in a period of intense scrutiny on the relative benefits and merits of PCI versus CABG [coronary artery bypass graft], and this study confirms that shortening DAPT to 3 months and then continuing with just ticagrelor does not bring any penalty in terms of ischemic events or repeat revascularization.”

TWILIGHT enrolled high-risk patients, but not “very-high-risk” patients, Dr. Azzalini noted. The enrollment criteria excluded patients on chronic anticoagulation, who had a prior stroke or liver sclerosis, or were on dialysis.

“Future trials should focus more on very-high-risk patients because these are the patients that we deal with on a daily basis in our clinical practice and we need data to inform our decisions,” he said. “I’m not sure I could use the science contained in this study and extrapolate them to patients on dialysis because these patients really have a high risk of restenosis on follow-up.”

Dr. Baber disclosed relationships with Amgen and Abbott. Dr. Azzalini had no relevant disclosures.

PHOENIX – Post hoc analysis of the randomized TWILIGHT trial comparing ticagrelor alone with ticagrelor plus aspirin in high-risk patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) shows both regimens were similarly effective in preventing repeat revascularization after 1 year.

In TWILIGHT, the main findings of which were previously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 7,119 high-risk PCI patients on standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) of ticagrelor plus aspirin for 3 months were randomized to continuation of DAPT or to ticagrelor plus placebo for 12 months.

University of Oklahoma

The new post hoc analysis included 6,759 patients and shows the rates of clinically driven revascularization were similar between the two groups: 7.1% and 6.6% for the ticagrelor monotherapy and ticagrelor-based DAPT groups, respectively (P = .363).

The findings were presented at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. 

Three key findings come from the post hoc analysis, Usman Baber, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization lab and associate professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, who presented the findings, said in an interview.

“The first is that, over the 1-year follow-up of our trial, we found that a repeat revascularization event occurred in 6.7% of patients,” he said. “We found that a slight majority of these repeat revascularization events were due to events at the target lesion or target vessel; and we found that most of the repeat revascularization events actually occurred in patients without a concomitant acute coronary syndrome. In other words, these were essentially stable patients when they were getting their repeat revascularization.”

The second major finding was that these high-risk patients who had repeat revascularization were at three times greater risk for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), based on a multivariable adjusted model, Dr. Baber said.

“And then third is that ticagrelor on its own as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin was equally effective in preventing repeat revascularization events,” he said.
 

Repeat revascularization

The goal of the analysis was to focus on clinically driven repeat revascularization as an outcome, Dr. Baber said. The analysis also aimed to understand the association between repeat revascularization and subsequent risk.

Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularization (TLR); target vessel revascularization (TVR); MACCE, including clinically driven revascularization; and net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of MACCE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding.

The outcomes of all those endpoints, except for NACE, were similar, Dr. Baber said. “Overall, ticagrelor monotherapy, as expected, reduced rates of bleeding as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin,” he said. The rates of NACE were 12.2% versus 14.6%, respectively (P = .004). For BARC 2,3, or 5 bleeding, the rates were 3.4% versus 7.1% (P < .001).

The findings validated repeat revascularization as a meaningful endpoint, Dr. Baber said. “Certainly, we don’t elevate repeat revascularization as an endpoint to the same level as death or stroke, but certainly this analysis and some others prior to it highlight the fact that when these patients come back for repeat revascularization, even if they’re stable, they clearly are at elevated risk for future ischemic events,” he said.

One limitation of the analysis is that the data are from a clinical trial, “which renders the findings not as generalizable to the broader patients in a clinical practice,” he said. However, the TWILIGHT data are validated and adjusted for multiple risk factors.

“When patients come in and they have a repeat revascularization, should there be a consideration to placing them on more intensive antithrombotic therapy?” he asked. “Right now, if patients have a repeat revascularization event and they’re stable, guidelines and clinical practice usually calls for continuing clopidogrel, but again our study and others like it indicate these patients are at a higher thrombotic risk, so maybe there’s a rationale for at least a short course of a more potent antiplatelet agent in such patients.”

University of Washington

The post hoc findings confirm those of the primary TWILIGHT trial, Lorenzo Azzalini, MD, PhD, MSc, director of interventional cardiology research at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, said in an interview.

“It’s not surprising to find no difference between the two therapies with regard to unplanned revascularization,” he said. “It’s considered that only stent thrombosis can only actually be mitigated by the drugs being investigated in the trial; all the other ischemic endpoints reflect more chronic ischemia—TLR or known TVR—upon which ticagrelor and aspirin do not play any role.”

However, he added, “I still think this study provides useful information to the community in a period of intense scrutiny on the relative benefits and merits of PCI versus CABG [coronary artery bypass graft], and this study confirms that shortening DAPT to 3 months and then continuing with just ticagrelor does not bring any penalty in terms of ischemic events or repeat revascularization.”

TWILIGHT enrolled high-risk patients, but not “very-high-risk” patients, Dr. Azzalini noted. The enrollment criteria excluded patients on chronic anticoagulation, who had a prior stroke or liver sclerosis, or were on dialysis.

“Future trials should focus more on very-high-risk patients because these are the patients that we deal with on a daily basis in our clinical practice and we need data to inform our decisions,” he said. “I’m not sure I could use the science contained in this study and extrapolate them to patients on dialysis because these patients really have a high risk of restenosis on follow-up.”

Dr. Baber disclosed relationships with Amgen and Abbott. Dr. Azzalini had no relevant disclosures.

PHOENIX – Post hoc analysis of the randomized TWILIGHT trial comparing ticagrelor alone with ticagrelor plus aspirin in high-risk patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) shows both regimens were similarly effective in preventing repeat revascularization after 1 year.

In TWILIGHT, the main findings of which were previously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 7,119 high-risk PCI patients on standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) of ticagrelor plus aspirin for 3 months were randomized to continuation of DAPT or to ticagrelor plus placebo for 12 months.

University of Oklahoma

The new post hoc analysis included 6,759 patients and shows the rates of clinically driven revascularization were similar between the two groups: 7.1% and 6.6% for the ticagrelor monotherapy and ticagrelor-based DAPT groups, respectively (P = .363).

The findings were presented at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. 

Three key findings come from the post hoc analysis, Usman Baber, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization lab and associate professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, who presented the findings, said in an interview.

“The first is that, over the 1-year follow-up of our trial, we found that a repeat revascularization event occurred in 6.7% of patients,” he said. “We found that a slight majority of these repeat revascularization events were due to events at the target lesion or target vessel; and we found that most of the repeat revascularization events actually occurred in patients without a concomitant acute coronary syndrome. In other words, these were essentially stable patients when they were getting their repeat revascularization.”

The second major finding was that these high-risk patients who had repeat revascularization were at three times greater risk for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), based on a multivariable adjusted model, Dr. Baber said.

“And then third is that ticagrelor on its own as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin was equally effective in preventing repeat revascularization events,” he said.
 

Repeat revascularization

The goal of the analysis was to focus on clinically driven repeat revascularization as an outcome, Dr. Baber said. The analysis also aimed to understand the association between repeat revascularization and subsequent risk.

Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularization (TLR); target vessel revascularization (TVR); MACCE, including clinically driven revascularization; and net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of MACCE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding.

The outcomes of all those endpoints, except for NACE, were similar, Dr. Baber said. “Overall, ticagrelor monotherapy, as expected, reduced rates of bleeding as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin,” he said. The rates of NACE were 12.2% versus 14.6%, respectively (P = .004). For BARC 2,3, or 5 bleeding, the rates were 3.4% versus 7.1% (P < .001).

The findings validated repeat revascularization as a meaningful endpoint, Dr. Baber said. “Certainly, we don’t elevate repeat revascularization as an endpoint to the same level as death or stroke, but certainly this analysis and some others prior to it highlight the fact that when these patients come back for repeat revascularization, even if they’re stable, they clearly are at elevated risk for future ischemic events,” he said.

One limitation of the analysis is that the data are from a clinical trial, “which renders the findings not as generalizable to the broader patients in a clinical practice,” he said. However, the TWILIGHT data are validated and adjusted for multiple risk factors.

“When patients come in and they have a repeat revascularization, should there be a consideration to placing them on more intensive antithrombotic therapy?” he asked. “Right now, if patients have a repeat revascularization event and they’re stable, guidelines and clinical practice usually calls for continuing clopidogrel, but again our study and others like it indicate these patients are at a higher thrombotic risk, so maybe there’s a rationale for at least a short course of a more potent antiplatelet agent in such patients.”

University of Washington

The post hoc findings confirm those of the primary TWILIGHT trial, Lorenzo Azzalini, MD, PhD, MSc, director of interventional cardiology research at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, said in an interview.

“It’s not surprising to find no difference between the two therapies with regard to unplanned revascularization,” he said. “It’s considered that only stent thrombosis can only actually be mitigated by the drugs being investigated in the trial; all the other ischemic endpoints reflect more chronic ischemia—TLR or known TVR—upon which ticagrelor and aspirin do not play any role.”

However, he added, “I still think this study provides useful information to the community in a period of intense scrutiny on the relative benefits and merits of PCI versus CABG [coronary artery bypass graft], and this study confirms that shortening DAPT to 3 months and then continuing with just ticagrelor does not bring any penalty in terms of ischemic events or repeat revascularization.”

TWILIGHT enrolled high-risk patients, but not “very-high-risk” patients, Dr. Azzalini noted. The enrollment criteria excluded patients on chronic anticoagulation, who had a prior stroke or liver sclerosis, or were on dialysis.

“Future trials should focus more on very-high-risk patients because these are the patients that we deal with on a daily basis in our clinical practice and we need data to inform our decisions,” he said. “I’m not sure I could use the science contained in this study and extrapolate them to patients on dialysis because these patients really have a high risk of restenosis on follow-up.”

Dr. Baber disclosed relationships with Amgen and Abbott. Dr. Azzalini had no relevant disclosures.

A real-world study of more than 12,000 cases over 7 years has validated the predictive ability of the proposed guidelines for stratifying thrombotic risks at 1 year for patients with non–ST-elevated acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

In research presented at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions, George Dangas, MD, PhD, current SCAI president and professor of cardiology and vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, reported that the European Society of Cardiology risk stratification criteria appropriately predicted risk in 12,538 patients treated from 2012 to 2019.

Icahn School of Medicine

Despite these proposed guidelines put forward by the ESC in 2020, no consensus exists on criteria for ischemic or thrombotic risk in NSTE-ACS patients, Dr. Dangas noted.

The new study shows that the 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk was four times greater in patients classified as medium risk (hazard ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.47-7.52) and six times greater in high-risk patients (HR, 6.16; 95% CI, 3.52-10.8), compared with the low-risk group, mostly because of higher rates of all-cause death and myocardial infarction, Dr. Dangas said in an interview.

“Indeed, we found some good correlation between the three risk categories and gradation of risk that validates essentially, but with the statistical testing that we need, that this classification is meaningful if not perfect,” Dr. Dangas said. “In the future we may perform calibrations to enhance its performance.”

The study used data on consecutive patients from the Angioplasty and Stent Procedures Database of Mount Sinai, grouping them into low, medium, and high thrombotic risk based on the proposed ESC guidelines for the management of NSTE-ACS.

The guidelines included a subset of criteria to identify patients with increased thrombotic risk who may benefit from extended treatment with a second antithrombotic agent.

This study aimed to evaluate the value of the criteria to identify patients at higher risk of ischemic events. “That’s why we went to our database to see how this might work,” Dr. Dangas said.

The researchers also found that high-risk patients had about a 40% greater risk of major bleeding (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.84). Bleeding risks were similar between the low- and moderate-risk groups.

The risk categories reflected the rates of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke: 5.4%, 4.1%, and 1.6% in the high-, moderate-, and low-risks groups, respectively (P < .001).

“This identification of ischemic risks worked very well for all-cause mortality,” Dr. Dangas said. “I feel this is a strength because mortality is a leader of outcomes. And of course, we’ve had some associations with all events like mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, which are interesting and valid, but I think a study result that indicates the mortality itself is known to be unidirectional and a very good correlation makes the result more robust.”
 

Critical role

Risk prediction models such as the proposed ESC guidelines will play a critical role as individualized medicine continues to evolve, Somjot Brar, MD, MPH, director of the regional department of cardiac catheterization at Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center, and associate clinical professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

UCLA

“This study highlights again the importance of the value for predictive and precision medicine,” Dr. Brar said. “Everything is moving in this direction where we make decisions that are more appropriate for a given patient as opposed to a population of patients.”

Study strengths are the large sample size in a real-world setting and thorough 1-year follow-up, Dr. Brar said.

A limitation is the three risk categories the guidelines proposed. “These are still pretty big boxes,” he said. “The low-, moderate- and high-risk categorization is still very, very broad and can be very vague.”

The relatively low percentage of low-risk patients – 12% versus 56% and 32% for the moderate- and high-risk groups – in this data set may also skew results, Dr. Brar said.

“As we move toward predictive analytics and medicine, we want to make these boxes smaller and smaller and smaller to be able to better understand which treatments should be administered to which patients to maximize the benefit against the risk,” he said. That would be a focus for future analyses, Dr. Brar said.

Dr. Dangas and Dr. Brar have no relevant financial disclosures.


 

A real-world study of more than 12,000 cases over 7 years has validated the predictive ability of the proposed guidelines for stratifying thrombotic risks at 1 year for patients with non–ST-elevated acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

In research presented at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions, George Dangas, MD, PhD, current SCAI president and professor of cardiology and vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, reported that the European Society of Cardiology risk stratification criteria appropriately predicted risk in 12,538 patients treated from 2012 to 2019.

Icahn School of Medicine

Despite these proposed guidelines put forward by the ESC in 2020, no consensus exists on criteria for ischemic or thrombotic risk in NSTE-ACS patients, Dr. Dangas noted.

The new study shows that the 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk was four times greater in patients classified as medium risk (hazard ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.47-7.52) and six times greater in high-risk patients (HR, 6.16; 95% CI, 3.52-10.8), compared with the low-risk group, mostly because of higher rates of all-cause death and myocardial infarction, Dr. Dangas said in an interview.

“Indeed, we found some good correlation between the three risk categories and gradation of risk that validates essentially, but with the statistical testing that we need, that this classification is meaningful if not perfect,” Dr. Dangas said. “In the future we may perform calibrations to enhance its performance.”

The study used data on consecutive patients from the Angioplasty and Stent Procedures Database of Mount Sinai, grouping them into low, medium, and high thrombotic risk based on the proposed ESC guidelines for the management of NSTE-ACS.

The guidelines included a subset of criteria to identify patients with increased thrombotic risk who may benefit from extended treatment with a second antithrombotic agent.

This study aimed to evaluate the value of the criteria to identify patients at higher risk of ischemic events. “That’s why we went to our database to see how this might work,” Dr. Dangas said.

The researchers also found that high-risk patients had about a 40% greater risk of major bleeding (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.84). Bleeding risks were similar between the low- and moderate-risk groups.

The risk categories reflected the rates of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke: 5.4%, 4.1%, and 1.6% in the high-, moderate-, and low-risks groups, respectively (P < .001).

“This identification of ischemic risks worked very well for all-cause mortality,” Dr. Dangas said. “I feel this is a strength because mortality is a leader of outcomes. And of course, we’ve had some associations with all events like mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, which are interesting and valid, but I think a study result that indicates the mortality itself is known to be unidirectional and a very good correlation makes the result more robust.”
 

Critical role

Risk prediction models such as the proposed ESC guidelines will play a critical role as individualized medicine continues to evolve, Somjot Brar, MD, MPH, director of the regional department of cardiac catheterization at Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center, and associate clinical professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

UCLA

“This study highlights again the importance of the value for predictive and precision medicine,” Dr. Brar said. “Everything is moving in this direction where we make decisions that are more appropriate for a given patient as opposed to a population of patients.”

Study strengths are the large sample size in a real-world setting and thorough 1-year follow-up, Dr. Brar said.

A limitation is the three risk categories the guidelines proposed. “These are still pretty big boxes,” he said. “The low-, moderate- and high-risk categorization is still very, very broad and can be very vague.”

The relatively low percentage of low-risk patients – 12% versus 56% and 32% for the moderate- and high-risk groups – in this data set may also skew results, Dr. Brar said.

“As we move toward predictive analytics and medicine, we want to make these boxes smaller and smaller and smaller to be able to better understand which treatments should be administered to which patients to maximize the benefit against the risk,” he said. That would be a focus for future analyses, Dr. Brar said.

Dr. Dangas and Dr. Brar have no relevant financial disclosures.


 

A real-world study of more than 12,000 cases over 7 years has validated the predictive ability of the proposed guidelines for stratifying thrombotic risks at 1 year for patients with non–ST-elevated acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

In research presented at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions, George Dangas, MD, PhD, current SCAI president and professor of cardiology and vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, reported that the European Society of Cardiology risk stratification criteria appropriately predicted risk in 12,538 patients treated from 2012 to 2019.

Icahn School of Medicine

Despite these proposed guidelines put forward by the ESC in 2020, no consensus exists on criteria for ischemic or thrombotic risk in NSTE-ACS patients, Dr. Dangas noted.

The new study shows that the 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk was four times greater in patients classified as medium risk (hazard ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.47-7.52) and six times greater in high-risk patients (HR, 6.16; 95% CI, 3.52-10.8), compared with the low-risk group, mostly because of higher rates of all-cause death and myocardial infarction, Dr. Dangas said in an interview.

“Indeed, we found some good correlation between the three risk categories and gradation of risk that validates essentially, but with the statistical testing that we need, that this classification is meaningful if not perfect,” Dr. Dangas said. “In the future we may perform calibrations to enhance its performance.”

The study used data on consecutive patients from the Angioplasty and Stent Procedures Database of Mount Sinai, grouping them into low, medium, and high thrombotic risk based on the proposed ESC guidelines for the management of NSTE-ACS.

The guidelines included a subset of criteria to identify patients with increased thrombotic risk who may benefit from extended treatment with a second antithrombotic agent.

This study aimed to evaluate the value of the criteria to identify patients at higher risk of ischemic events. “That’s why we went to our database to see how this might work,” Dr. Dangas said.

The researchers also found that high-risk patients had about a 40% greater risk of major bleeding (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.84). Bleeding risks were similar between the low- and moderate-risk groups.

The risk categories reflected the rates of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke: 5.4%, 4.1%, and 1.6% in the high-, moderate-, and low-risks groups, respectively (P < .001).

“This identification of ischemic risks worked very well for all-cause mortality,” Dr. Dangas said. “I feel this is a strength because mortality is a leader of outcomes. And of course, we’ve had some associations with all events like mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, which are interesting and valid, but I think a study result that indicates the mortality itself is known to be unidirectional and a very good correlation makes the result more robust.”
 

Critical role

Risk prediction models such as the proposed ESC guidelines will play a critical role as individualized medicine continues to evolve, Somjot Brar, MD, MPH, director of the regional department of cardiac catheterization at Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center, and associate clinical professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

UCLA

“This study highlights again the importance of the value for predictive and precision medicine,” Dr. Brar said. “Everything is moving in this direction where we make decisions that are more appropriate for a given patient as opposed to a population of patients.”

Study strengths are the large sample size in a real-world setting and thorough 1-year follow-up, Dr. Brar said.

A limitation is the three risk categories the guidelines proposed. “These are still pretty big boxes,” he said. “The low-, moderate- and high-risk categorization is still very, very broad and can be very vague.”

The relatively low percentage of low-risk patients – 12% versus 56% and 32% for the moderate- and high-risk groups – in this data set may also skew results, Dr. Brar said.

“As we move toward predictive analytics and medicine, we want to make these boxes smaller and smaller and smaller to be able to better understand which treatments should be administered to which patients to maximize the benefit against the risk,” he said. That would be a focus for future analyses, Dr. Brar said.

Dr. Dangas and Dr. Brar have no relevant financial disclosures.