Richard Mark Kirkner

In what may be the first randomized trial to compare coronary intervention access using the distal or proximal radial arteries, researchers have found no significant differences between the two in hand function a year after the procedure.

The distal radial artery (DRA) access point is just below the thumb on the inside of the wrist. The proximal radial artery (PRA) entry is in the inside lower forearm above the wrist.

“There has been growing interest in the use of distal radial access given its ease of hemostasis, lower incidence of radial artery occlusions, as well as the more ergonomic favorable setup for a left radial access, which is typically utilized in patients with prior CABG who undergo a cardiac catheterization when used as alternative to femoral artery access,” Karim Al-Azizi, MD, of Texas A&M University, an interventional cardiologist and associate program director of the cardiology fellowship at  Baylor Scott & White Health, in Plano, Tex., said in an interview.

Baylor Scott & White

Dr Al-Azizi presented the late-breaking 1-year results of the DIPRA–for Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery–study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. The 30-day results of the DIPRA trial were presented in 2022 at this meeting.

Dr. Al-Azizi said DIPRA is the first randomized, controlled trial comparing hand function outcomes with the two approaches. “I think the biggest question for most investigators and most practitioners is that, is this safe on the hand? Are we doing the right thing by going into the radial artery in the anatomical snuff box in proximity to the radial nerve and would that affect motor function?” he said. “And it does not seem like it from a head-to-head comparison of proximal versus distal access.”

The DIPRA study randomized 300 patients 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through either the distal or proximal access. Of those, 216 completed 1-year follow-up, 112 randomized to DRA and 104 to PRA.

The study used three metrics to evaluate hand function: hand-grip strength; pinch test, which measured the strength of a pinch between the thumb and index finger; and QuickDASH, an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, in which participants self-evaluate their hand function. Study protocol mandated that operators use ultrasound guidance for DRA access.

The 1-year results of all three measures showed no significant difference in change of hand function from baseline between the two groups. The composite average score change was –0.07 (–0.41, 0.44) for the DRA patients and –0.03. (–0.36, 0.44) for the PRA group (P = .59).

One-year change for the specific hand function measures for DRA and PRA, respectively, were: hand grip, 0.7 (–3, 4.5) vs. 1.3 (–2, 4.3) kg (P = .57); pinch grip, –0.1 (–1.1, 1) vs. –0.3 (–1, 0.7) kg (P = .66); and none for change in the QuickDASH score (–6.6, 2.3 vs. –4.6, 2.9) points (P = .58).

Outcomes at intervention were also similar. Bleeding incidence was 0% and 1.4% (P = .25) in the respective groups. Successful RA access was achieved in 96.7% and 98% (P = .72).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups: 75% were male; mean age was 66.6 ± 9.6 years; 32% had diabetes; 77% had hypertension; and 19% had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention.

One key strength of the DIPRA study Dr. Al-Azizi noted is that it included some investigators who were at the early stage of the learning curve with the procedure. A limitation is that it didn’t evaluate hand numbness or tingling, but hand sensory testing is “very subjective,” he said. “To avoid confusion, we decided to go with the more repeatable questionnaire rather than a sensation or sensory test,” he added.

The next step for his research team is to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated DRA and PRA, Dr. Al-Azizi said.
 

‘Slow to the party’

U.S. interventional cardiologists have been “slow to the party” in adopting radial artery access for PCI, said David A. Cox, MD, of Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., and SCAI communications committee chair. Even now uptake is low, compared with the rest of the world, he said.

“I can tell you what patients care about: Did you have to stick my groin?” he said at a SCAI press conference. “What they just want to know is that there are no issues with hand function.”

Some patients who need fine motor hand function would still opt for femoral access, he said.

“Are we looking at the right metric?” he asked Dr. Al-Azizi. “It took a long time to get American doctors to stick the radial, so why would I want to learn distal radial artery if I’m really pretty good at proximal and if it’s not inferior?”

Dr. Al-Azizi noted that previous studies showed a trend toward a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) with DRA access. It also better preserves the renal arteries for dialysis and CABG, he said.

“The metric that would move the needle,” Dr. Cox noted, “is if you had radial artery occlusion rates vs. snuff box occlusion rates, and we don’t have that rate.”

Dr. Al-Azizi has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cox disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic.

In what may be the first randomized trial to compare coronary intervention access using the distal or proximal radial arteries, researchers have found no significant differences between the two in hand function a year after the procedure.

The distal radial artery (DRA) access point is just below the thumb on the inside of the wrist. The proximal radial artery (PRA) entry is in the inside lower forearm above the wrist.

“There has been growing interest in the use of distal radial access given its ease of hemostasis, lower incidence of radial artery occlusions, as well as the more ergonomic favorable setup for a left radial access, which is typically utilized in patients with prior CABG who undergo a cardiac catheterization when used as alternative to femoral artery access,” Karim Al-Azizi, MD, of Texas A&M University, an interventional cardiologist and associate program director of the cardiology fellowship at  Baylor Scott & White Health, in Plano, Tex., said in an interview.

Baylor Scott & White

Dr Al-Azizi presented the late-breaking 1-year results of the DIPRA–for Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery–study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. The 30-day results of the DIPRA trial were presented in 2022 at this meeting.

Dr. Al-Azizi said DIPRA is the first randomized, controlled trial comparing hand function outcomes with the two approaches. “I think the biggest question for most investigators and most practitioners is that, is this safe on the hand? Are we doing the right thing by going into the radial artery in the anatomical snuff box in proximity to the radial nerve and would that affect motor function?” he said. “And it does not seem like it from a head-to-head comparison of proximal versus distal access.”

The DIPRA study randomized 300 patients 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through either the distal or proximal access. Of those, 216 completed 1-year follow-up, 112 randomized to DRA and 104 to PRA.

The study used three metrics to evaluate hand function: hand-grip strength; pinch test, which measured the strength of a pinch between the thumb and index finger; and QuickDASH, an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, in which participants self-evaluate their hand function. Study protocol mandated that operators use ultrasound guidance for DRA access.

The 1-year results of all three measures showed no significant difference in change of hand function from baseline between the two groups. The composite average score change was –0.07 (–0.41, 0.44) for the DRA patients and –0.03. (–0.36, 0.44) for the PRA group (P = .59).

One-year change for the specific hand function measures for DRA and PRA, respectively, were: hand grip, 0.7 (–3, 4.5) vs. 1.3 (–2, 4.3) kg (P = .57); pinch grip, –0.1 (–1.1, 1) vs. –0.3 (–1, 0.7) kg (P = .66); and none for change in the QuickDASH score (–6.6, 2.3 vs. –4.6, 2.9) points (P = .58).

Outcomes at intervention were also similar. Bleeding incidence was 0% and 1.4% (P = .25) in the respective groups. Successful RA access was achieved in 96.7% and 98% (P = .72).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups: 75% were male; mean age was 66.6 ± 9.6 years; 32% had diabetes; 77% had hypertension; and 19% had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention.

One key strength of the DIPRA study Dr. Al-Azizi noted is that it included some investigators who were at the early stage of the learning curve with the procedure. A limitation is that it didn’t evaluate hand numbness or tingling, but hand sensory testing is “very subjective,” he said. “To avoid confusion, we decided to go with the more repeatable questionnaire rather than a sensation or sensory test,” he added.

The next step for his research team is to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated DRA and PRA, Dr. Al-Azizi said.
 

‘Slow to the party’

U.S. interventional cardiologists have been “slow to the party” in adopting radial artery access for PCI, said David A. Cox, MD, of Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., and SCAI communications committee chair. Even now uptake is low, compared with the rest of the world, he said.

“I can tell you what patients care about: Did you have to stick my groin?” he said at a SCAI press conference. “What they just want to know is that there are no issues with hand function.”

Some patients who need fine motor hand function would still opt for femoral access, he said.

“Are we looking at the right metric?” he asked Dr. Al-Azizi. “It took a long time to get American doctors to stick the radial, so why would I want to learn distal radial artery if I’m really pretty good at proximal and if it’s not inferior?”

Dr. Al-Azizi noted that previous studies showed a trend toward a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) with DRA access. It also better preserves the renal arteries for dialysis and CABG, he said.

“The metric that would move the needle,” Dr. Cox noted, “is if you had radial artery occlusion rates vs. snuff box occlusion rates, and we don’t have that rate.”

Dr. Al-Azizi has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cox disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic.

In what may be the first randomized trial to compare coronary intervention access using the distal or proximal radial arteries, researchers have found no significant differences between the two in hand function a year after the procedure.

The distal radial artery (DRA) access point is just below the thumb on the inside of the wrist. The proximal radial artery (PRA) entry is in the inside lower forearm above the wrist.

“There has been growing interest in the use of distal radial access given its ease of hemostasis, lower incidence of radial artery occlusions, as well as the more ergonomic favorable setup for a left radial access, which is typically utilized in patients with prior CABG who undergo a cardiac catheterization when used as alternative to femoral artery access,” Karim Al-Azizi, MD, of Texas A&M University, an interventional cardiologist and associate program director of the cardiology fellowship at  Baylor Scott & White Health, in Plano, Tex., said in an interview.

Baylor Scott & White

Dr Al-Azizi presented the late-breaking 1-year results of the DIPRA–for Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery–study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. The 30-day results of the DIPRA trial were presented in 2022 at this meeting.

Dr. Al-Azizi said DIPRA is the first randomized, controlled trial comparing hand function outcomes with the two approaches. “I think the biggest question for most investigators and most practitioners is that, is this safe on the hand? Are we doing the right thing by going into the radial artery in the anatomical snuff box in proximity to the radial nerve and would that affect motor function?” he said. “And it does not seem like it from a head-to-head comparison of proximal versus distal access.”

The DIPRA study randomized 300 patients 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through either the distal or proximal access. Of those, 216 completed 1-year follow-up, 112 randomized to DRA and 104 to PRA.

The study used three metrics to evaluate hand function: hand-grip strength; pinch test, which measured the strength of a pinch between the thumb and index finger; and QuickDASH, an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, in which participants self-evaluate their hand function. Study protocol mandated that operators use ultrasound guidance for DRA access.

The 1-year results of all three measures showed no significant difference in change of hand function from baseline between the two groups. The composite average score change was –0.07 (–0.41, 0.44) for the DRA patients and –0.03. (–0.36, 0.44) for the PRA group (P = .59).

One-year change for the specific hand function measures for DRA and PRA, respectively, were: hand grip, 0.7 (–3, 4.5) vs. 1.3 (–2, 4.3) kg (P = .57); pinch grip, –0.1 (–1.1, 1) vs. –0.3 (–1, 0.7) kg (P = .66); and none for change in the QuickDASH score (–6.6, 2.3 vs. –4.6, 2.9) points (P = .58).

Outcomes at intervention were also similar. Bleeding incidence was 0% and 1.4% (P = .25) in the respective groups. Successful RA access was achieved in 96.7% and 98% (P = .72).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups: 75% were male; mean age was 66.6 ± 9.6 years; 32% had diabetes; 77% had hypertension; and 19% had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention.

One key strength of the DIPRA study Dr. Al-Azizi noted is that it included some investigators who were at the early stage of the learning curve with the procedure. A limitation is that it didn’t evaluate hand numbness or tingling, but hand sensory testing is “very subjective,” he said. “To avoid confusion, we decided to go with the more repeatable questionnaire rather than a sensation or sensory test,” he added.

The next step for his research team is to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated DRA and PRA, Dr. Al-Azizi said.
 

‘Slow to the party’

U.S. interventional cardiologists have been “slow to the party” in adopting radial artery access for PCI, said David A. Cox, MD, of Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., and SCAI communications committee chair. Even now uptake is low, compared with the rest of the world, he said.

“I can tell you what patients care about: Did you have to stick my groin?” he said at a SCAI press conference. “What they just want to know is that there are no issues with hand function.”

Some patients who need fine motor hand function would still opt for femoral access, he said.

“Are we looking at the right metric?” he asked Dr. Al-Azizi. “It took a long time to get American doctors to stick the radial, so why would I want to learn distal radial artery if I’m really pretty good at proximal and if it’s not inferior?”

Dr. Al-Azizi noted that previous studies showed a trend toward a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) with DRA access. It also better preserves the renal arteries for dialysis and CABG, he said.

“The metric that would move the needle,” Dr. Cox noted, “is if you had radial artery occlusion rates vs. snuff box occlusion rates, and we don’t have that rate.”

Dr. Al-Azizi has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cox disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic.

Anticipating Food and Drug Administration approval of at least one investigational device for renal denervation (RDN) as a treatment for hypertension (HTN) refractory to medical therapies, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions is asking its members and the public to provide input on a draft position statement to guide use of the procedure.

The draft addresses appropriate patient selection, best practices for procedural techniques, measures for operator competence, recommendations for operator and staff training, and guidance for hospitals and centers that want to adopt RDN. SCAI is requesting feedback by June 14.

“With the anticipated FDA approval of renal denervation, there will be a need for SCAI to formulate an official position around clinical competence and training standards, best practices, and institutional and operator requirements for RDN,” Herbert D. Aronow, MD, MPH, chair of the statement writing committee, said in an interview.

RDN is an endoscopic procedure that disrupts the sympathetic nerves near the renal arteries. A number of studies, including sham-controlled, randomized trials, have shown that RDN can achieve short-term reductions in blood pressure for patients for whom HTN medications don’t work. Two devices are awaiting FDA premarket approval: the Paradise uRDN system, by ReCor Medical; and the Symplicity Spyral device, by Medtronic.

However, the trajectory of RDN has been uneven, said Dr. Aronow, president of the Society for Vascular Medicine and medical director for heart and vascular services and Benson Ford Chair in cardiology at Henry Ford Health, Detroit.

“Despite supportive early animal and human data, the first sham-controlled randomized trial of RDN was negative on its primary endpoint,” he said. “Modifications to patient inclusion/exclusion criteria, refinements in denervation technology and protocols, and selection of more appropriate study endpoints resulted in a series of positive randomized, sham-controlled trials. These second-generation trials found that RDN, when compared with sham therapy, substantially reduced ambulatory and office blood pressures.”

The draft is available for review at the SCAI website. Comments may be submitted via a link to a questionnaire.

“Through the open comment process, we are hoping to gain broad perspective from stakeholders, including clinicians, hospitals, payers, professional societies, industry and patients,” Dr. Aronow said. “By incorporating this feedback, we hope to enhance the quality of the document before we submit it for publication.”

The bulk of the SCAI draft position statement is devoted to patient selection and procedural and technical considerations. “We believe it will serve as a road map for the successful launch of RDN programs around the United States,” Dr. Aronow said.
 

Patient selection considerations

The draft statement notes that RDN for all patients with uncontrolled HTN “would not currently be practical.” The average age of patients for whom RDN showed effectiveness in the cited clinical trials was less than 60 years. The effectiveness of RDN for patients in whom arterial stiffness is a primary driver of HTN “is less certain.”

Patients who may benefit most from RDN are those with limited medical treatment options. Initially, RDN was tried on patients who had continued to experience resistant HTN despite taking three or more medications, including a diuretic, the statement noted. But even nonadherent patients may derive some potential benefit from RDN.

The statement also added that RDN isn’t a panacea; about one-third of trial patients didn’t respond to the procedure. The most reliable predictor of response may be higher levels of baseline systolic blood pressure, otherwise known as Wilder’s principle. The statement listed other potential markers of success, including higher nocturnal blood pressure and wider swings in nocturnal blood pressure.
 

Procedural and technical considerations

The statement also provided direction on a protocol for RDN procedures. The preprocedure evaluation should include noninvasive imaging to rule out disqualifying secondary causes of HTN, such as renal artery stenosis or fibromuscular dysplasia.

Patient characteristics should drive the selection of imaging modality, and availability as well as local expertise should be taken into account. The statement gave CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography the edge over duplex ultrasound.

The statement also noted a number of anatomic considerations, citing preclinical analyses that “consistently reinforce” circumferential, perivascular RDN to ablate the renal nerves. In planning the procedure, consideration should be given to accessory renal arteries.

Additionally, operators should have training in obtaining access, and they should be familiar with different catheters and console devices as well as troubleshooting.
 

Training, competency, and institutional requirements

Interventional cardiologists who want to perform RDN should demonstrate proficiency in a number of specific skill sets germane to the procedure, from arterial vascular access and hemostasis to recognizing and treating potential renovascular complications.

For institutions that want to offer RDN, the statement offered a number of requirements. One is to designate a primary physician stakeholder who’s well versed in HTN management to oversee the long-term management of RDN patients.

The institution must have a dedicated HTN program and a multidisciplinary team to manage treated patients. Requirements for RDN referral centers range from operators experienced with FDA-approved RDN devices to an infrastructure that includes CT or MR angiography to identify appropriate candidates.

“Renal denervation has been a long time coming, and it’s a great example of how academicians, clinicians and industry leaders can partner to move the cardiovascular field forward, addressing a major public health issue for which alternative solutions are greatly needed,” Dr. Aronow said.

Dr. Aronow has served as an unpaid council member for Medtronic and as a paid moderator for ReCor.

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

Anticipating Food and Drug Administration approval of at least one investigational device for renal denervation (RDN) as a treatment for hypertension (HTN) refractory to medical therapies, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions is asking its members and the public to provide input on a draft position statement to guide use of the procedure.

The draft addresses appropriate patient selection, best practices for procedural techniques, measures for operator competence, recommendations for operator and staff training, and guidance for hospitals and centers that want to adopt RDN. SCAI is requesting feedback by June 14.

“With the anticipated FDA approval of renal denervation, there will be a need for SCAI to formulate an official position around clinical competence and training standards, best practices, and institutional and operator requirements for RDN,” Herbert D. Aronow, MD, MPH, chair of the statement writing committee, said in an interview.

RDN is an endoscopic procedure that disrupts the sympathetic nerves near the renal arteries. A number of studies, including sham-controlled, randomized trials, have shown that RDN can achieve short-term reductions in blood pressure for patients for whom HTN medications don’t work. Two devices are awaiting FDA premarket approval: the Paradise uRDN system, by ReCor Medical; and the Symplicity Spyral device, by Medtronic.

However, the trajectory of RDN has been uneven, said Dr. Aronow, president of the Society for Vascular Medicine and medical director for heart and vascular services and Benson Ford Chair in cardiology at Henry Ford Health, Detroit.

“Despite supportive early animal and human data, the first sham-controlled randomized trial of RDN was negative on its primary endpoint,” he said. “Modifications to patient inclusion/exclusion criteria, refinements in denervation technology and protocols, and selection of more appropriate study endpoints resulted in a series of positive randomized, sham-controlled trials. These second-generation trials found that RDN, when compared with sham therapy, substantially reduced ambulatory and office blood pressures.”

The draft is available for review at the SCAI website. Comments may be submitted via a link to a questionnaire.

“Through the open comment process, we are hoping to gain broad perspective from stakeholders, including clinicians, hospitals, payers, professional societies, industry and patients,” Dr. Aronow said. “By incorporating this feedback, we hope to enhance the quality of the document before we submit it for publication.”

The bulk of the SCAI draft position statement is devoted to patient selection and procedural and technical considerations. “We believe it will serve as a road map for the successful launch of RDN programs around the United States,” Dr. Aronow said.
 

Patient selection considerations

The draft statement notes that RDN for all patients with uncontrolled HTN “would not currently be practical.” The average age of patients for whom RDN showed effectiveness in the cited clinical trials was less than 60 years. The effectiveness of RDN for patients in whom arterial stiffness is a primary driver of HTN “is less certain.”

Patients who may benefit most from RDN are those with limited medical treatment options. Initially, RDN was tried on patients who had continued to experience resistant HTN despite taking three or more medications, including a diuretic, the statement noted. But even nonadherent patients may derive some potential benefit from RDN.

The statement also added that RDN isn’t a panacea; about one-third of trial patients didn’t respond to the procedure. The most reliable predictor of response may be higher levels of baseline systolic blood pressure, otherwise known as Wilder’s principle. The statement listed other potential markers of success, including higher nocturnal blood pressure and wider swings in nocturnal blood pressure.
 

Procedural and technical considerations

The statement also provided direction on a protocol for RDN procedures. The preprocedure evaluation should include noninvasive imaging to rule out disqualifying secondary causes of HTN, such as renal artery stenosis or fibromuscular dysplasia.

Patient characteristics should drive the selection of imaging modality, and availability as well as local expertise should be taken into account. The statement gave CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography the edge over duplex ultrasound.

The statement also noted a number of anatomic considerations, citing preclinical analyses that “consistently reinforce” circumferential, perivascular RDN to ablate the renal nerves. In planning the procedure, consideration should be given to accessory renal arteries.

Additionally, operators should have training in obtaining access, and they should be familiar with different catheters and console devices as well as troubleshooting.
 

Training, competency, and institutional requirements

Interventional cardiologists who want to perform RDN should demonstrate proficiency in a number of specific skill sets germane to the procedure, from arterial vascular access and hemostasis to recognizing and treating potential renovascular complications.

For institutions that want to offer RDN, the statement offered a number of requirements. One is to designate a primary physician stakeholder who’s well versed in HTN management to oversee the long-term management of RDN patients.

The institution must have a dedicated HTN program and a multidisciplinary team to manage treated patients. Requirements for RDN referral centers range from operators experienced with FDA-approved RDN devices to an infrastructure that includes CT or MR angiography to identify appropriate candidates.

“Renal denervation has been a long time coming, and it’s a great example of how academicians, clinicians and industry leaders can partner to move the cardiovascular field forward, addressing a major public health issue for which alternative solutions are greatly needed,” Dr. Aronow said.

Dr. Aronow has served as an unpaid council member for Medtronic and as a paid moderator for ReCor.

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

Anticipating Food and Drug Administration approval of at least one investigational device for renal denervation (RDN) as a treatment for hypertension (HTN) refractory to medical therapies, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions is asking its members and the public to provide input on a draft position statement to guide use of the procedure.

The draft addresses appropriate patient selection, best practices for procedural techniques, measures for operator competence, recommendations for operator and staff training, and guidance for hospitals and centers that want to adopt RDN. SCAI is requesting feedback by June 14.

“With the anticipated FDA approval of renal denervation, there will be a need for SCAI to formulate an official position around clinical competence and training standards, best practices, and institutional and operator requirements for RDN,” Herbert D. Aronow, MD, MPH, chair of the statement writing committee, said in an interview.

RDN is an endoscopic procedure that disrupts the sympathetic nerves near the renal arteries. A number of studies, including sham-controlled, randomized trials, have shown that RDN can achieve short-term reductions in blood pressure for patients for whom HTN medications don’t work. Two devices are awaiting FDA premarket approval: the Paradise uRDN system, by ReCor Medical; and the Symplicity Spyral device, by Medtronic.

However, the trajectory of RDN has been uneven, said Dr. Aronow, president of the Society for Vascular Medicine and medical director for heart and vascular services and Benson Ford Chair in cardiology at Henry Ford Health, Detroit.

“Despite supportive early animal and human data, the first sham-controlled randomized trial of RDN was negative on its primary endpoint,” he said. “Modifications to patient inclusion/exclusion criteria, refinements in denervation technology and protocols, and selection of more appropriate study endpoints resulted in a series of positive randomized, sham-controlled trials. These second-generation trials found that RDN, when compared with sham therapy, substantially reduced ambulatory and office blood pressures.”

The draft is available for review at the SCAI website. Comments may be submitted via a link to a questionnaire.

“Through the open comment process, we are hoping to gain broad perspective from stakeholders, including clinicians, hospitals, payers, professional societies, industry and patients,” Dr. Aronow said. “By incorporating this feedback, we hope to enhance the quality of the document before we submit it for publication.”

The bulk of the SCAI draft position statement is devoted to patient selection and procedural and technical considerations. “We believe it will serve as a road map for the successful launch of RDN programs around the United States,” Dr. Aronow said.
 

Patient selection considerations

The draft statement notes that RDN for all patients with uncontrolled HTN “would not currently be practical.” The average age of patients for whom RDN showed effectiveness in the cited clinical trials was less than 60 years. The effectiveness of RDN for patients in whom arterial stiffness is a primary driver of HTN “is less certain.”

Patients who may benefit most from RDN are those with limited medical treatment options. Initially, RDN was tried on patients who had continued to experience resistant HTN despite taking three or more medications, including a diuretic, the statement noted. But even nonadherent patients may derive some potential benefit from RDN.

The statement also added that RDN isn’t a panacea; about one-third of trial patients didn’t respond to the procedure. The most reliable predictor of response may be higher levels of baseline systolic blood pressure, otherwise known as Wilder’s principle. The statement listed other potential markers of success, including higher nocturnal blood pressure and wider swings in nocturnal blood pressure.
 

Procedural and technical considerations

The statement also provided direction on a protocol for RDN procedures. The preprocedure evaluation should include noninvasive imaging to rule out disqualifying secondary causes of HTN, such as renal artery stenosis or fibromuscular dysplasia.

Patient characteristics should drive the selection of imaging modality, and availability as well as local expertise should be taken into account. The statement gave CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography the edge over duplex ultrasound.

The statement also noted a number of anatomic considerations, citing preclinical analyses that “consistently reinforce” circumferential, perivascular RDN to ablate the renal nerves. In planning the procedure, consideration should be given to accessory renal arteries.

Additionally, operators should have training in obtaining access, and they should be familiar with different catheters and console devices as well as troubleshooting.
 

Training, competency, and institutional requirements

Interventional cardiologists who want to perform RDN should demonstrate proficiency in a number of specific skill sets germane to the procedure, from arterial vascular access and hemostasis to recognizing and treating potential renovascular complications.

For institutions that want to offer RDN, the statement offered a number of requirements. One is to designate a primary physician stakeholder who’s well versed in HTN management to oversee the long-term management of RDN patients.

The institution must have a dedicated HTN program and a multidisciplinary team to manage treated patients. Requirements for RDN referral centers range from operators experienced with FDA-approved RDN devices to an infrastructure that includes CT or MR angiography to identify appropriate candidates.

“Renal denervation has been a long time coming, and it’s a great example of how academicians, clinicians and industry leaders can partner to move the cardiovascular field forward, addressing a major public health issue for which alternative solutions are greatly needed,” Dr. Aronow said.

Dr. Aronow has served as an unpaid council member for Medtronic and as a paid moderator for ReCor.

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

PHOENIX – Marijuana users have an almost four times greater risk of developing peripheral artery disease, compared with nonusers, results of a study of more than 600,000 marijuana users suggest, although there was no greater risk of death from myocardial infarction or other cardiac causes or need for revascularization.

Instants/Getty Images

The researchers noted, however, that the study population was young, with an average age of 37.4 years, and that the study period, from 2016 to 2019, predates the legalization of recreational marijuana in a number of states.

Nonetheless, even in this young study population, marijuana users’ risk of developing peripheral artery disease (PAD) was 3.68 times greater (P < .001) than that of nonusers. PAD at a young age could precede worse outcomes later in life, the study authors said.

“Basically, marijuana users were at increased risk of being diagnosed with peripheral artery disease, but there was no increased risk for them requiring any intervention, such as a peripheral vascular intervention, nor were they at increased risk of death from what we found,” said Hirva Vyas, DO, an internal medicine resident at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, who presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

The study used data on 623,768 marijuana users from the National Inpatient Sample, a nationwide database of inpatient visits covered by all public and commercial payers, then extracted a diagnosis for PAD from all 30 million–plus patient encounters to compare PAD rates between marijuana users and nonusers. Marijuana users were more likely to be White and to have elective rather than emergency admissions (P < .001). The researchers used diagnostic codes to identify marijuana users and PAD patients.

Recreational marijuana is legal in 22 states and the District of Columbia, according to ProCon.org. Since 2019, the last year of the study, 11 states have legalized marijuana for recreational use. “It’s a data point that we studied at one point in time, only from 2016 to 2019,” Dr. Vyas said in an interview.

“As we’ve seen over the past 4-5 years, legalization has skyrocketed and recreational use has become more and more favorable not only among younger folks but older folks,” study coauthor Harsh Jain, MD, a second-year internal medicine resident at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said in the interview. “It would be really refreshing to see how these data change as we look at endpoints from 2019 to 2023.”

Because of the young age of the study population, Dr. Jain said, these findings may not accurately represent the true cardiovascular risks of marijuana use, especially later in life.

“One of the biggest secondary endpoints that we wanted to study was the development of chronic conditions that lead to multiple rehospitalizations, the most significant one of which would be the development of heart failure,” Dr. Jain said. “However, it was difficult to stratify because, again, many of these patients were very young and so they did not carry the diagnosis for heart failure, so we couldn’t complete that subset analysis.”

The goal is to extend the study period out to 2023, Dr. Jain said. “We know that these are very crude and rudimentary data findings that we presented so far, but we’re hoping that the final paper gives us a chance to flesh out all the details of our study and also gives us a chance to expand going forward,” he said.

The findings are in line with other research into the effects of marijuana and cardiovascular disease, said Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, medical director for cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans who’s published a number of studies on PAD and substance use, including marijuana.

“It is known that cannabis is associated with more vasoconstriction, has sympathomimetic effects, causes endothelial dysfunction and increased platelet aggregation, and is known to increase the risk of acute myocardial infarction, especially in the hour or so after use,” he said in written comments sent to this news organization.

“It is also well known to be a cause of thromboangiitis obliterans, which is in the PAD family,” he added. “Based on these mechanisms, one would expect an increased PAD and, especially, PAD events. The 3.7-fold increased risk is supportive of this increased PAD.”

One study strength, Dr. Lavie pointed out, is that it’s one of the few studies that found an association between marijuana and PAD, which hasn’t been studied as well as other cardiovascular endpoints. “However,” he said, “the limitation is this is just an inpatient sample, and it is all based on coding – e.g., a patient could have PAD and it may not have been coded.”

PHOENIX – Marijuana users have an almost four times greater risk of developing peripheral artery disease, compared with nonusers, results of a study of more than 600,000 marijuana users suggest, although there was no greater risk of death from myocardial infarction or other cardiac causes or need for revascularization.

Instants/Getty Images

The researchers noted, however, that the study population was young, with an average age of 37.4 years, and that the study period, from 2016 to 2019, predates the legalization of recreational marijuana in a number of states.

Nonetheless, even in this young study population, marijuana users’ risk of developing peripheral artery disease (PAD) was 3.68 times greater (P < .001) than that of nonusers. PAD at a young age could precede worse outcomes later in life, the study authors said.

“Basically, marijuana users were at increased risk of being diagnosed with peripheral artery disease, but there was no increased risk for them requiring any intervention, such as a peripheral vascular intervention, nor were they at increased risk of death from what we found,” said Hirva Vyas, DO, an internal medicine resident at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, who presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

The study used data on 623,768 marijuana users from the National Inpatient Sample, a nationwide database of inpatient visits covered by all public and commercial payers, then extracted a diagnosis for PAD from all 30 million–plus patient encounters to compare PAD rates between marijuana users and nonusers. Marijuana users were more likely to be White and to have elective rather than emergency admissions (P < .001). The researchers used diagnostic codes to identify marijuana users and PAD patients.

Recreational marijuana is legal in 22 states and the District of Columbia, according to ProCon.org. Since 2019, the last year of the study, 11 states have legalized marijuana for recreational use. “It’s a data point that we studied at one point in time, only from 2016 to 2019,” Dr. Vyas said in an interview.

“As we’ve seen over the past 4-5 years, legalization has skyrocketed and recreational use has become more and more favorable not only among younger folks but older folks,” study coauthor Harsh Jain, MD, a second-year internal medicine resident at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said in the interview. “It would be really refreshing to see how these data change as we look at endpoints from 2019 to 2023.”

Because of the young age of the study population, Dr. Jain said, these findings may not accurately represent the true cardiovascular risks of marijuana use, especially later in life.

“One of the biggest secondary endpoints that we wanted to study was the development of chronic conditions that lead to multiple rehospitalizations, the most significant one of which would be the development of heart failure,” Dr. Jain said. “However, it was difficult to stratify because, again, many of these patients were very young and so they did not carry the diagnosis for heart failure, so we couldn’t complete that subset analysis.”

The goal is to extend the study period out to 2023, Dr. Jain said. “We know that these are very crude and rudimentary data findings that we presented so far, but we’re hoping that the final paper gives us a chance to flesh out all the details of our study and also gives us a chance to expand going forward,” he said.

The findings are in line with other research into the effects of marijuana and cardiovascular disease, said Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, medical director for cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans who’s published a number of studies on PAD and substance use, including marijuana.

“It is known that cannabis is associated with more vasoconstriction, has sympathomimetic effects, causes endothelial dysfunction and increased platelet aggregation, and is known to increase the risk of acute myocardial infarction, especially in the hour or so after use,” he said in written comments sent to this news organization.

“It is also well known to be a cause of thromboangiitis obliterans, which is in the PAD family,” he added. “Based on these mechanisms, one would expect an increased PAD and, especially, PAD events. The 3.7-fold increased risk is supportive of this increased PAD.”

One study strength, Dr. Lavie pointed out, is that it’s one of the few studies that found an association between marijuana and PAD, which hasn’t been studied as well as other cardiovascular endpoints. “However,” he said, “the limitation is this is just an inpatient sample, and it is all based on coding – e.g., a patient could have PAD and it may not have been coded.”

PHOENIX – Marijuana users have an almost four times greater risk of developing peripheral artery disease, compared with nonusers, results of a study of more than 600,000 marijuana users suggest, although there was no greater risk of death from myocardial infarction or other cardiac causes or need for revascularization.

Instants/Getty Images

The researchers noted, however, that the study population was young, with an average age of 37.4 years, and that the study period, from 2016 to 2019, predates the legalization of recreational marijuana in a number of states.

Nonetheless, even in this young study population, marijuana users’ risk of developing peripheral artery disease (PAD) was 3.68 times greater (P < .001) than that of nonusers. PAD at a young age could precede worse outcomes later in life, the study authors said.

“Basically, marijuana users were at increased risk of being diagnosed with peripheral artery disease, but there was no increased risk for them requiring any intervention, such as a peripheral vascular intervention, nor were they at increased risk of death from what we found,” said Hirva Vyas, DO, an internal medicine resident at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, who presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

The study used data on 623,768 marijuana users from the National Inpatient Sample, a nationwide database of inpatient visits covered by all public and commercial payers, then extracted a diagnosis for PAD from all 30 million–plus patient encounters to compare PAD rates between marijuana users and nonusers. Marijuana users were more likely to be White and to have elective rather than emergency admissions (P < .001). The researchers used diagnostic codes to identify marijuana users and PAD patients.

Recreational marijuana is legal in 22 states and the District of Columbia, according to ProCon.org. Since 2019, the last year of the study, 11 states have legalized marijuana for recreational use. “It’s a data point that we studied at one point in time, only from 2016 to 2019,” Dr. Vyas said in an interview.

“As we’ve seen over the past 4-5 years, legalization has skyrocketed and recreational use has become more and more favorable not only among younger folks but older folks,” study coauthor Harsh Jain, MD, a second-year internal medicine resident at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said in the interview. “It would be really refreshing to see how these data change as we look at endpoints from 2019 to 2023.”

Because of the young age of the study population, Dr. Jain said, these findings may not accurately represent the true cardiovascular risks of marijuana use, especially later in life.

“One of the biggest secondary endpoints that we wanted to study was the development of chronic conditions that lead to multiple rehospitalizations, the most significant one of which would be the development of heart failure,” Dr. Jain said. “However, it was difficult to stratify because, again, many of these patients were very young and so they did not carry the diagnosis for heart failure, so we couldn’t complete that subset analysis.”

The goal is to extend the study period out to 2023, Dr. Jain said. “We know that these are very crude and rudimentary data findings that we presented so far, but we’re hoping that the final paper gives us a chance to flesh out all the details of our study and also gives us a chance to expand going forward,” he said.

The findings are in line with other research into the effects of marijuana and cardiovascular disease, said Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, medical director for cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans who’s published a number of studies on PAD and substance use, including marijuana.

“It is known that cannabis is associated with more vasoconstriction, has sympathomimetic effects, causes endothelial dysfunction and increased platelet aggregation, and is known to increase the risk of acute myocardial infarction, especially in the hour or so after use,” he said in written comments sent to this news organization.

“It is also well known to be a cause of thromboangiitis obliterans, which is in the PAD family,” he added. “Based on these mechanisms, one would expect an increased PAD and, especially, PAD events. The 3.7-fold increased risk is supportive of this increased PAD.”

One study strength, Dr. Lavie pointed out, is that it’s one of the few studies that found an association between marijuana and PAD, which hasn’t been studied as well as other cardiovascular endpoints. “However,” he said, “the limitation is this is just an inpatient sample, and it is all based on coding – e.g., a patient could have PAD and it may not have been coded.”

A large price increase for colchicine in 2010 led to a significant falloff in its use for gout that persisted for the next decade while emergency and rheumatology visits for gout rose, suggesting poorer disease control, a retrospective cohort study reported.
 

The price of colchicine, commonly prescribed for acute gout attacks, climbed from $11.25 per prescription in 2009 to $190.49 in 2011, with the average out-of-pocket cost more than quadrupling, from $7.37 to $29.42, the study noted. Colchicine prescriptions for gout declined 27% over the next decade, according to adjusted analyses that the study authors performed.

Massachusetts General Hospital

“A roughly 16-fold increase in colchicine prices appeared to have lowered colchicine use over the next decade,” senior author Zirui Song, MD, PhD, an associate professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and an internist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told this news organization in written comments. “Over the same period, patients with gout used more of other medications that could treat gout. They also had more emergency department visits for gout and rheumatologist visits for gout, which potentially signals poorer disease control.”

The study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, examined MarketScan data from a longitudinal cohort of patients who had employer-sponsored health insurance and a diagnosis of gout from 2007 to 2019. MarketScan is an IBM database of medical and drug data from employers and health plans. The study examined more than 2.7 million patient-year observations over the 13-year period.
 

How the price increase happened

After 2011, a large percentage of patients shifted to less effective but more affordable drugs to treat gout. Prescriptions for allopurinol increased 32% (P < .001) and oral corticosteroids 8.3% over the decade. “These are imperfect substitutes,” Dr. Song said. “Allopurinol is used to prevent gout, while oral corticosteroids can be used to treat a gout flare.”

At the same time, visits for gout-related complaints to emergency departments and rheumatology offices increased through the ensuing years: 39.8% and 10.5% on an adjusted analysis, respectively (P < .001 for both).

Colchicine is actually a drug that predates the creation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1938 and had been grandfathered under its Unapproved Drug Initiative. Then in 2009, the FDA determined that colchicine was effective for treating arthritis-related gout flares after the manufacturer, URL Pharma, presented results of a randomized, controlled trial of 185 patients with gout.

The next year, the FDA granted URL Pharma 3 years of market exclusivity for the drug under the brand name Colcrys, now trademarked by Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

The latest study noted that longer-term analysis of the impact of the FDA’s decision had been lacking. The goal, said Dr. Song, was “to better understand the long-run implications of large drug price increases in the U.S. by studying the case of colchicine.”

He added, “For drugs that lack competition, large price increases can have large economic and clinical consequences over many years.”
 

Absorbing the cost

Lead author Dan P. Ly, MD, PhD, MPP, assistant professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, added, “Our study has large implications [for] when generic medications or other medications experience large price increases. Use of the medication in question drops or patients have to pay more out of pocket, and patient health can suffer as a result.”

The dropoff in colchicine use in this patient population could have been worse, Dr. Song said. “Despite colchicine use decreasing by 27% over nearly a decade, the fact that it did not decline more suggests that for patients with gout, the large price increase was mostly absorbed by their insurers, employers, or themselves – e.g., passed through to higher premiums, lower wages, or higher cost-sharing.”

Harvard Medical School

Aaron Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, reported previously on the price consequences of colchicine early on after the FDA granted the manufacturer market exclusivity.

“In our past research, we looked at how the massive increase in the price of colchicine increased spending on the drug and reduced use in a relatively short time period after the price hike,” said Dr. Kesselheim, who was not involved in this current study by Dr. Ly, Dr. Song, and Mia Giuriato, BBA, MA, from Harvard Medical School. “This study evaluated the experiences of patients with gout over multiple years and showed that the reductions in use persisted and were associated with increases in ED and rheumatology visits, suggesting worsening control of gout due to the relative inaccessibility of the drug at the new high price.”

The latest findings have public policy implications, Dr. Kesselheim said. “In the case of colchicine, the FDA made a bad pitch, leading to a home run for the manufacturer and a shutout for patients.”

“The FDA needs to make sure to take into account the quite predictable patient effects that can result from disruptions to competition when it considers taking steps like it did in the colchicine case to disrupt the market and create an artificial monopoly, even if the FDA acted in the best of intentions in this case,” Dr. Kesselheim added.

Dr. Song received funding for the study from the National Institutes of Health and Arnold Ventures. He also disclosed receiving personal fees from the Research Triangle Institute, Google Ventures, VBID Health, and the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. Dr. Ly, Ms. Giuriato, and Dr. Kesselheim report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large price increase for colchicine in 2010 led to a significant falloff in its use for gout that persisted for the next decade while emergency and rheumatology visits for gout rose, suggesting poorer disease control, a retrospective cohort study reported.
 

The price of colchicine, commonly prescribed for acute gout attacks, climbed from $11.25 per prescription in 2009 to $190.49 in 2011, with the average out-of-pocket cost more than quadrupling, from $7.37 to $29.42, the study noted. Colchicine prescriptions for gout declined 27% over the next decade, according to adjusted analyses that the study authors performed.

Massachusetts General Hospital

“A roughly 16-fold increase in colchicine prices appeared to have lowered colchicine use over the next decade,” senior author Zirui Song, MD, PhD, an associate professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and an internist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told this news organization in written comments. “Over the same period, patients with gout used more of other medications that could treat gout. They also had more emergency department visits for gout and rheumatologist visits for gout, which potentially signals poorer disease control.”

The study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, examined MarketScan data from a longitudinal cohort of patients who had employer-sponsored health insurance and a diagnosis of gout from 2007 to 2019. MarketScan is an IBM database of medical and drug data from employers and health plans. The study examined more than 2.7 million patient-year observations over the 13-year period.
 

How the price increase happened

After 2011, a large percentage of patients shifted to less effective but more affordable drugs to treat gout. Prescriptions for allopurinol increased 32% (P < .001) and oral corticosteroids 8.3% over the decade. “These are imperfect substitutes,” Dr. Song said. “Allopurinol is used to prevent gout, while oral corticosteroids can be used to treat a gout flare.”

At the same time, visits for gout-related complaints to emergency departments and rheumatology offices increased through the ensuing years: 39.8% and 10.5% on an adjusted analysis, respectively (P < .001 for both).

Colchicine is actually a drug that predates the creation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1938 and had been grandfathered under its Unapproved Drug Initiative. Then in 2009, the FDA determined that colchicine was effective for treating arthritis-related gout flares after the manufacturer, URL Pharma, presented results of a randomized, controlled trial of 185 patients with gout.

The next year, the FDA granted URL Pharma 3 years of market exclusivity for the drug under the brand name Colcrys, now trademarked by Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

The latest study noted that longer-term analysis of the impact of the FDA’s decision had been lacking. The goal, said Dr. Song, was “to better understand the long-run implications of large drug price increases in the U.S. by studying the case of colchicine.”

He added, “For drugs that lack competition, large price increases can have large economic and clinical consequences over many years.”
 

Absorbing the cost

Lead author Dan P. Ly, MD, PhD, MPP, assistant professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, added, “Our study has large implications [for] when generic medications or other medications experience large price increases. Use of the medication in question drops or patients have to pay more out of pocket, and patient health can suffer as a result.”

The dropoff in colchicine use in this patient population could have been worse, Dr. Song said. “Despite colchicine use decreasing by 27% over nearly a decade, the fact that it did not decline more suggests that for patients with gout, the large price increase was mostly absorbed by their insurers, employers, or themselves – e.g., passed through to higher premiums, lower wages, or higher cost-sharing.”

Harvard Medical School

Aaron Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, reported previously on the price consequences of colchicine early on after the FDA granted the manufacturer market exclusivity.

“In our past research, we looked at how the massive increase in the price of colchicine increased spending on the drug and reduced use in a relatively short time period after the price hike,” said Dr. Kesselheim, who was not involved in this current study by Dr. Ly, Dr. Song, and Mia Giuriato, BBA, MA, from Harvard Medical School. “This study evaluated the experiences of patients with gout over multiple years and showed that the reductions in use persisted and were associated with increases in ED and rheumatology visits, suggesting worsening control of gout due to the relative inaccessibility of the drug at the new high price.”

The latest findings have public policy implications, Dr. Kesselheim said. “In the case of colchicine, the FDA made a bad pitch, leading to a home run for the manufacturer and a shutout for patients.”

“The FDA needs to make sure to take into account the quite predictable patient effects that can result from disruptions to competition when it considers taking steps like it did in the colchicine case to disrupt the market and create an artificial monopoly, even if the FDA acted in the best of intentions in this case,” Dr. Kesselheim added.

Dr. Song received funding for the study from the National Institutes of Health and Arnold Ventures. He also disclosed receiving personal fees from the Research Triangle Institute, Google Ventures, VBID Health, and the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. Dr. Ly, Ms. Giuriato, and Dr. Kesselheim report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large price increase for colchicine in 2010 led to a significant falloff in its use for gout that persisted for the next decade while emergency and rheumatology visits for gout rose, suggesting poorer disease control, a retrospective cohort study reported.
 

The price of colchicine, commonly prescribed for acute gout attacks, climbed from $11.25 per prescription in 2009 to $190.49 in 2011, with the average out-of-pocket cost more than quadrupling, from $7.37 to $29.42, the study noted. Colchicine prescriptions for gout declined 27% over the next decade, according to adjusted analyses that the study authors performed.

Massachusetts General Hospital

“A roughly 16-fold increase in colchicine prices appeared to have lowered colchicine use over the next decade,” senior author Zirui Song, MD, PhD, an associate professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and an internist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told this news organization in written comments. “Over the same period, patients with gout used more of other medications that could treat gout. They also had more emergency department visits for gout and rheumatologist visits for gout, which potentially signals poorer disease control.”

The study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, examined MarketScan data from a longitudinal cohort of patients who had employer-sponsored health insurance and a diagnosis of gout from 2007 to 2019. MarketScan is an IBM database of medical and drug data from employers and health plans. The study examined more than 2.7 million patient-year observations over the 13-year period.
 

How the price increase happened

After 2011, a large percentage of patients shifted to less effective but more affordable drugs to treat gout. Prescriptions for allopurinol increased 32% (P < .001) and oral corticosteroids 8.3% over the decade. “These are imperfect substitutes,” Dr. Song said. “Allopurinol is used to prevent gout, while oral corticosteroids can be used to treat a gout flare.”

At the same time, visits for gout-related complaints to emergency departments and rheumatology offices increased through the ensuing years: 39.8% and 10.5% on an adjusted analysis, respectively (P < .001 for both).

Colchicine is actually a drug that predates the creation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1938 and had been grandfathered under its Unapproved Drug Initiative. Then in 2009, the FDA determined that colchicine was effective for treating arthritis-related gout flares after the manufacturer, URL Pharma, presented results of a randomized, controlled trial of 185 patients with gout.

The next year, the FDA granted URL Pharma 3 years of market exclusivity for the drug under the brand name Colcrys, now trademarked by Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

The latest study noted that longer-term analysis of the impact of the FDA’s decision had been lacking. The goal, said Dr. Song, was “to better understand the long-run implications of large drug price increases in the U.S. by studying the case of colchicine.”

He added, “For drugs that lack competition, large price increases can have large economic and clinical consequences over many years.”
 

Absorbing the cost

Lead author Dan P. Ly, MD, PhD, MPP, assistant professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, added, “Our study has large implications [for] when generic medications or other medications experience large price increases. Use of the medication in question drops or patients have to pay more out of pocket, and patient health can suffer as a result.”

The dropoff in colchicine use in this patient population could have been worse, Dr. Song said. “Despite colchicine use decreasing by 27% over nearly a decade, the fact that it did not decline more suggests that for patients with gout, the large price increase was mostly absorbed by their insurers, employers, or themselves – e.g., passed through to higher premiums, lower wages, or higher cost-sharing.”

Harvard Medical School

Aaron Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, reported previously on the price consequences of colchicine early on after the FDA granted the manufacturer market exclusivity.

“In our past research, we looked at how the massive increase in the price of colchicine increased spending on the drug and reduced use in a relatively short time period after the price hike,” said Dr. Kesselheim, who was not involved in this current study by Dr. Ly, Dr. Song, and Mia Giuriato, BBA, MA, from Harvard Medical School. “This study evaluated the experiences of patients with gout over multiple years and showed that the reductions in use persisted and were associated with increases in ED and rheumatology visits, suggesting worsening control of gout due to the relative inaccessibility of the drug at the new high price.”

The latest findings have public policy implications, Dr. Kesselheim said. “In the case of colchicine, the FDA made a bad pitch, leading to a home run for the manufacturer and a shutout for patients.”

“The FDA needs to make sure to take into account the quite predictable patient effects that can result from disruptions to competition when it considers taking steps like it did in the colchicine case to disrupt the market and create an artificial monopoly, even if the FDA acted in the best of intentions in this case,” Dr. Kesselheim added.

Dr. Song received funding for the study from the National Institutes of Health and Arnold Ventures. He also disclosed receiving personal fees from the Research Triangle Institute, Google Ventures, VBID Health, and the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. Dr. Ly, Ms. Giuriato, and Dr. Kesselheim report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cohort study of more than 1.5 million hospital admissions in Canada through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic has quantified the benefit of vaccinations. Unvaccinated patients were found to be up to 15 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated patients.

Investigators analyzed 1.513 million admissions at 155 hospitals across Canada from March 15, 2020, to May 28, 2022. The study included 51,679 adult admissions and 4,035 pediatric admissions for COVID-19. Although the share of COVID-19 admissions increased in the fifth and sixth waves, from Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022 – after the full vaccine rollout – to 7.73% from 2.47% in the previous four waves, the proportion of adults admitted to the intensive care unit was significantly lower, at 8.7% versus 21.8% (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.36).

“The good thing about waves five and six was we were able to show the COVID cases tended to be less severe, but on the other hand, because the disease in the community was so much higher, the demands on the health care system were much higher than the previous waves,” study author Charles Frenette, MD, director of infection prevention and control at McGill University, Montreal, and chair of the study’s adult subgroup, said in an interview. “But here we were able to show the benefit of vaccinations, particularly the boosting dose, in protecting against those severe outcomes.”

The study, published  in JAMA Network Open, used the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program database, which collects hospital data across Canada. It was activated in March 2020 to collect details on all COVID-19 admissions, co-author Nisha Thampi, MD, chair of the study’s pediatric subgroup, told this news organization.

“We’re now over 3 years into the pandemic, and CNISP continues to monitor COVID-19 as well as other pathogens in near real time,” said Dr. Thampi, an associate professor and infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

“That’s a particular strength of this surveillance program as well. We would see this data on a biweekly basis, and that allows for [us] to implement timely protection and action.”
 

Tracing trends over six waves

The study tracked COVID-19 hospitalizations during six waves. The first lasted from March 15 to August 31, 2020, and the second lasted from Sept. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021. The wild-type variant was dominant during both waves. The third wave lasted from March 1 to June 30, 2021, and was marked by the mixed Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants. The fourth wave lasted from July 1 to Dec. 25, 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant. The Omicron variant dominated during waves five (Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022) and six (March 20 to May 28, 2022).

Hospitalizations reached a peak of 14,461 in wave five. ICU admissions, however, peaked at 2,164 during wave four, and all-cause deaths peaked at 1,663 during wave two.

The investigators also analyzed how unvaccinated patients fared, compared with the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated-plus (that is, patients with one or more additional doses). During waves five and six, unvaccinated patients were 4.3 times more likely to end up in the ICU than fully vaccinated patients and were 12.2 times more likely than fully vaccinated-plus patients. Likewise, the rate for all-cause in-hospital death for unvaccinated patients was 3.9 times greater than that for fully vaccinated patients and 15.1 times greater than that for fully vaccinated-plus patients.

The effect of vaccines emerged in waves three and four, said Dr. Frenette. “We started to see really, really significant protection and benefit from the vaccine, not only in incidence of admission but also in the incidence of complications of ICU care, ventilation, and mortality.”

Results for pediatric patients were similar to those for adults, Dr. Thampi noted. During waves five and six, overall admissions peaked, but the share of ICU admissions decreased to 9.4% from 18.1%, which was the rate during the previous four waves (OR, 0.47).

“What’s important is how pediatric hospitalizations changed over the course of the various waves,” said Dr. Thampi.

“Where we saw the highest admissions during the early Omicron dominance, we actually had the lowest numbers of hospitalizations with death and admissions into ICUs.”
 

Doing more with the data

David Fisman, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, said, “This is a study that shows us how tremendously dramatic the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine were in terms of saving lives during the pandemic.” Dr. Fisman was not involved in the study.

But CNISP, which receives funding from Public Health Agency of Canada, could do more with the data it collects to better protect the public from COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections, Dr. Fisman said.

“The first problematic thing about this paper is that Canadians are paying for a surveillance system that looks at risks of acquiring infections, including COVID-19 infections, in the hospital, but that data is not fed back to the people paying for its production,” he said.

“So, Canadians don’t have the ability to really understand in real time how much risk they’re experiencing via going to the hospital for some other reason.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Frenette and Dr. Thampi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seqirus, Merck, the Ontario Nurses Association, and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

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

A cohort study of more than 1.5 million hospital admissions in Canada through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic has quantified the benefit of vaccinations. Unvaccinated patients were found to be up to 15 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated patients.

Investigators analyzed 1.513 million admissions at 155 hospitals across Canada from March 15, 2020, to May 28, 2022. The study included 51,679 adult admissions and 4,035 pediatric admissions for COVID-19. Although the share of COVID-19 admissions increased in the fifth and sixth waves, from Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022 – after the full vaccine rollout – to 7.73% from 2.47% in the previous four waves, the proportion of adults admitted to the intensive care unit was significantly lower, at 8.7% versus 21.8% (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.36).

“The good thing about waves five and six was we were able to show the COVID cases tended to be less severe, but on the other hand, because the disease in the community was so much higher, the demands on the health care system were much higher than the previous waves,” study author Charles Frenette, MD, director of infection prevention and control at McGill University, Montreal, and chair of the study’s adult subgroup, said in an interview. “But here we were able to show the benefit of vaccinations, particularly the boosting dose, in protecting against those severe outcomes.”

The study, published  in JAMA Network Open, used the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program database, which collects hospital data across Canada. It was activated in March 2020 to collect details on all COVID-19 admissions, co-author Nisha Thampi, MD, chair of the study’s pediatric subgroup, told this news organization.

“We’re now over 3 years into the pandemic, and CNISP continues to monitor COVID-19 as well as other pathogens in near real time,” said Dr. Thampi, an associate professor and infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

“That’s a particular strength of this surveillance program as well. We would see this data on a biweekly basis, and that allows for [us] to implement timely protection and action.”
 

Tracing trends over six waves

The study tracked COVID-19 hospitalizations during six waves. The first lasted from March 15 to August 31, 2020, and the second lasted from Sept. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021. The wild-type variant was dominant during both waves. The third wave lasted from March 1 to June 30, 2021, and was marked by the mixed Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants. The fourth wave lasted from July 1 to Dec. 25, 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant. The Omicron variant dominated during waves five (Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022) and six (March 20 to May 28, 2022).

Hospitalizations reached a peak of 14,461 in wave five. ICU admissions, however, peaked at 2,164 during wave four, and all-cause deaths peaked at 1,663 during wave two.

The investigators also analyzed how unvaccinated patients fared, compared with the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated-plus (that is, patients with one or more additional doses). During waves five and six, unvaccinated patients were 4.3 times more likely to end up in the ICU than fully vaccinated patients and were 12.2 times more likely than fully vaccinated-plus patients. Likewise, the rate for all-cause in-hospital death for unvaccinated patients was 3.9 times greater than that for fully vaccinated patients and 15.1 times greater than that for fully vaccinated-plus patients.

The effect of vaccines emerged in waves three and four, said Dr. Frenette. “We started to see really, really significant protection and benefit from the vaccine, not only in incidence of admission but also in the incidence of complications of ICU care, ventilation, and mortality.”

Results for pediatric patients were similar to those for adults, Dr. Thampi noted. During waves five and six, overall admissions peaked, but the share of ICU admissions decreased to 9.4% from 18.1%, which was the rate during the previous four waves (OR, 0.47).

“What’s important is how pediatric hospitalizations changed over the course of the various waves,” said Dr. Thampi.

“Where we saw the highest admissions during the early Omicron dominance, we actually had the lowest numbers of hospitalizations with death and admissions into ICUs.”
 

Doing more with the data

David Fisman, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, said, “This is a study that shows us how tremendously dramatic the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine were in terms of saving lives during the pandemic.” Dr. Fisman was not involved in the study.

But CNISP, which receives funding from Public Health Agency of Canada, could do more with the data it collects to better protect the public from COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections, Dr. Fisman said.

“The first problematic thing about this paper is that Canadians are paying for a surveillance system that looks at risks of acquiring infections, including COVID-19 infections, in the hospital, but that data is not fed back to the people paying for its production,” he said.

“So, Canadians don’t have the ability to really understand in real time how much risk they’re experiencing via going to the hospital for some other reason.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Frenette and Dr. Thampi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seqirus, Merck, the Ontario Nurses Association, and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

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

A cohort study of more than 1.5 million hospital admissions in Canada through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic has quantified the benefit of vaccinations. Unvaccinated patients were found to be up to 15 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated patients.

Investigators analyzed 1.513 million admissions at 155 hospitals across Canada from March 15, 2020, to May 28, 2022. The study included 51,679 adult admissions and 4,035 pediatric admissions for COVID-19. Although the share of COVID-19 admissions increased in the fifth and sixth waves, from Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022 – after the full vaccine rollout – to 7.73% from 2.47% in the previous four waves, the proportion of adults admitted to the intensive care unit was significantly lower, at 8.7% versus 21.8% (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.36).

“The good thing about waves five and six was we were able to show the COVID cases tended to be less severe, but on the other hand, because the disease in the community was so much higher, the demands on the health care system were much higher than the previous waves,” study author Charles Frenette, MD, director of infection prevention and control at McGill University, Montreal, and chair of the study’s adult subgroup, said in an interview. “But here we were able to show the benefit of vaccinations, particularly the boosting dose, in protecting against those severe outcomes.”

The study, published  in JAMA Network Open, used the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program database, which collects hospital data across Canada. It was activated in March 2020 to collect details on all COVID-19 admissions, co-author Nisha Thampi, MD, chair of the study’s pediatric subgroup, told this news organization.

“We’re now over 3 years into the pandemic, and CNISP continues to monitor COVID-19 as well as other pathogens in near real time,” said Dr. Thampi, an associate professor and infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

“That’s a particular strength of this surveillance program as well. We would see this data on a biweekly basis, and that allows for [us] to implement timely protection and action.”
 

Tracing trends over six waves

The study tracked COVID-19 hospitalizations during six waves. The first lasted from March 15 to August 31, 2020, and the second lasted from Sept. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021. The wild-type variant was dominant during both waves. The third wave lasted from March 1 to June 30, 2021, and was marked by the mixed Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants. The fourth wave lasted from July 1 to Dec. 25, 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant. The Omicron variant dominated during waves five (Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022) and six (March 20 to May 28, 2022).

Hospitalizations reached a peak of 14,461 in wave five. ICU admissions, however, peaked at 2,164 during wave four, and all-cause deaths peaked at 1,663 during wave two.

The investigators also analyzed how unvaccinated patients fared, compared with the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated-plus (that is, patients with one or more additional doses). During waves five and six, unvaccinated patients were 4.3 times more likely to end up in the ICU than fully vaccinated patients and were 12.2 times more likely than fully vaccinated-plus patients. Likewise, the rate for all-cause in-hospital death for unvaccinated patients was 3.9 times greater than that for fully vaccinated patients and 15.1 times greater than that for fully vaccinated-plus patients.

The effect of vaccines emerged in waves three and four, said Dr. Frenette. “We started to see really, really significant protection and benefit from the vaccine, not only in incidence of admission but also in the incidence of complications of ICU care, ventilation, and mortality.”

Results for pediatric patients were similar to those for adults, Dr. Thampi noted. During waves five and six, overall admissions peaked, but the share of ICU admissions decreased to 9.4% from 18.1%, which was the rate during the previous four waves (OR, 0.47).

“What’s important is how pediatric hospitalizations changed over the course of the various waves,” said Dr. Thampi.

“Where we saw the highest admissions during the early Omicron dominance, we actually had the lowest numbers of hospitalizations with death and admissions into ICUs.”
 

Doing more with the data

David Fisman, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, said, “This is a study that shows us how tremendously dramatic the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine were in terms of saving lives during the pandemic.” Dr. Fisman was not involved in the study.

But CNISP, which receives funding from Public Health Agency of Canada, could do more with the data it collects to better protect the public from COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections, Dr. Fisman said.

“The first problematic thing about this paper is that Canadians are paying for a surveillance system that looks at risks of acquiring infections, including COVID-19 infections, in the hospital, but that data is not fed back to the people paying for its production,” he said.

“So, Canadians don’t have the ability to really understand in real time how much risk they’re experiencing via going to the hospital for some other reason.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Frenette and Dr. Thampi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seqirus, Merck, the Ontario Nurses Association, and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

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

The time has come to rethink the conventional primary endpoints investigators use in coronary revascularization trials – a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death or MI, and other endpoints – and shift toward greater emphasis on quality of life, two clinical trial investigators say.

Gregg Stone, MD, and Mario Gaudino, MD, MSCE, PhD, made their case in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, writing: “The classic academic exercise of comparing revascularization modalities in an elusive search for a clear ‘winner’ has failed.” Dr. Stone was the principal investigator of the landmark EXCEL trial and an investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial, the latter of which Dr. Gaudino was also an investigator. Both trials evaluated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) as treatments for coronary artery disease.

In an interview, Dr. Stone, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “We’re proposing a new endpoint called a composite endpoint measured in a hierarchical fashion of death or quality of life [QOL].” Dr. Gaudino is a cardiac surgeon at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
 

Quality of life as a validation tool

As a measure of revascularization after PCI or CABG, Dr. Stone said, QOL is ready for prime time. “Over the last 20 years there’s been a very rich literature of science developed linking certain quality of life instruments to improved outcomes, in particularly health but also heart failure.”

Those instruments include the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire. “All of these are sufficiently validated that the [Food and Drug Administration] considers them ‘validated tools’ for use in clinical trials.” Dr. Stone also noted that substudies of three landmark trials comparing PCI and CABG – EXCEL, SYNTAX, and FREEDOM – used those instruments to evaluate QOL as an endpoint alongside “hard” outcomes such as death, MI or stroke. “So quality of life already is being used and it is already widely accepted. What we’re saying is, when you think about the information you need for medical studies, we believe it’s time to elevate that from secondary supportive information to primary.”

He and Dr. Gaudino are putting their money where their mouths are. They’ve applied for a grant through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to use QOL as an outcomes measure in a trial of revascularization strategies in women and minority patients.
 

Shortcomings with traditional endpoints

Dr. Stone explained some of the shortcomings with the traditional endpoints revascularization studies have used. “Everybody agrees that mortality or survival is the most important endpoint, but studies can never be large enough to be powered for that. So we always end up combining them with myocardial infarction, stroke, and often with repeat revascularization” into one MACE endpoint.

But those four types of events are “very, very different,” Dr. Stone said. The severity of MIs and strokes can range from minor, almost inconsequential events to major, debilitating events. “Some strokes resolve in a few days but we count them all the same.”

He ticked off a list of the other outcomes the traditional endpoints don’t account for: atrial fibrillation, kidney dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, cognitive changes, and vascular complications. They all can all have a significant impact on a patient’s QOL, Dr. Stone said.

“We’ve now entered an era that is much more patient centered,” Dr. Stone said. “My goal as a physician is to try to impart my knowledge of the evidence that’s out there so that the patient can make the decision that gives them the best chance of meeting their life goals and objectives. When you ask patients what they want, they all want to live longer and they want to live better.”

Mass General

MACE as a composite endpoint has its shortcomings, but using QOL can also be fraught with problems, said Suzanne Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

With regards to MACE, she echoed some of Dr. Stone’s concerns. “Patients and clinicians likely would not consider a repeat stenting procedure to be the same as having a stroke, and so weighting these two outcomes equally within a composite endpoint can potentially result in a skewed trial conclusion.”

One potential issue with QOL as an endpoint is that it can vary from day to day. “If quality of life is only measured at a few time points, such as annually, it is possible that those measurements may only reflect a small portion of the patient’s overall quality of life,” she said. “Accordingly, I think that it will be important to incorporate frequent assessments of a patient’s quality of life if these measures will be used as a primary endpoint in cardiac revascularization trials.”

And, in a cost-conscious health care system, quantity (length) of life tends to carry more weight than QOL, she said. “So it will be important that a trial using quality-of-life improvement as a primary endpoint mandates that the degree of improvement be large enough to ensure that the treatment remains high-value from a health economics standpoint.”

Dr. Stone disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baron reported financial relationships with Abiomed, Acarix, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll Medical, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Janssen.
 

The time has come to rethink the conventional primary endpoints investigators use in coronary revascularization trials – a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death or MI, and other endpoints – and shift toward greater emphasis on quality of life, two clinical trial investigators say.

Gregg Stone, MD, and Mario Gaudino, MD, MSCE, PhD, made their case in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, writing: “The classic academic exercise of comparing revascularization modalities in an elusive search for a clear ‘winner’ has failed.” Dr. Stone was the principal investigator of the landmark EXCEL trial and an investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial, the latter of which Dr. Gaudino was also an investigator. Both trials evaluated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) as treatments for coronary artery disease.

In an interview, Dr. Stone, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “We’re proposing a new endpoint called a composite endpoint measured in a hierarchical fashion of death or quality of life [QOL].” Dr. Gaudino is a cardiac surgeon at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
 

Quality of life as a validation tool

As a measure of revascularization after PCI or CABG, Dr. Stone said, QOL is ready for prime time. “Over the last 20 years there’s been a very rich literature of science developed linking certain quality of life instruments to improved outcomes, in particularly health but also heart failure.”

Those instruments include the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire. “All of these are sufficiently validated that the [Food and Drug Administration] considers them ‘validated tools’ for use in clinical trials.” Dr. Stone also noted that substudies of three landmark trials comparing PCI and CABG – EXCEL, SYNTAX, and FREEDOM – used those instruments to evaluate QOL as an endpoint alongside “hard” outcomes such as death, MI or stroke. “So quality of life already is being used and it is already widely accepted. What we’re saying is, when you think about the information you need for medical studies, we believe it’s time to elevate that from secondary supportive information to primary.”

He and Dr. Gaudino are putting their money where their mouths are. They’ve applied for a grant through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to use QOL as an outcomes measure in a trial of revascularization strategies in women and minority patients.
 

Shortcomings with traditional endpoints

Dr. Stone explained some of the shortcomings with the traditional endpoints revascularization studies have used. “Everybody agrees that mortality or survival is the most important endpoint, but studies can never be large enough to be powered for that. So we always end up combining them with myocardial infarction, stroke, and often with repeat revascularization” into one MACE endpoint.

But those four types of events are “very, very different,” Dr. Stone said. The severity of MIs and strokes can range from minor, almost inconsequential events to major, debilitating events. “Some strokes resolve in a few days but we count them all the same.”

He ticked off a list of the other outcomes the traditional endpoints don’t account for: atrial fibrillation, kidney dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, cognitive changes, and vascular complications. They all can all have a significant impact on a patient’s QOL, Dr. Stone said.

“We’ve now entered an era that is much more patient centered,” Dr. Stone said. “My goal as a physician is to try to impart my knowledge of the evidence that’s out there so that the patient can make the decision that gives them the best chance of meeting their life goals and objectives. When you ask patients what they want, they all want to live longer and they want to live better.”

Mass General

MACE as a composite endpoint has its shortcomings, but using QOL can also be fraught with problems, said Suzanne Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

With regards to MACE, she echoed some of Dr. Stone’s concerns. “Patients and clinicians likely would not consider a repeat stenting procedure to be the same as having a stroke, and so weighting these two outcomes equally within a composite endpoint can potentially result in a skewed trial conclusion.”

One potential issue with QOL as an endpoint is that it can vary from day to day. “If quality of life is only measured at a few time points, such as annually, it is possible that those measurements may only reflect a small portion of the patient’s overall quality of life,” she said. “Accordingly, I think that it will be important to incorporate frequent assessments of a patient’s quality of life if these measures will be used as a primary endpoint in cardiac revascularization trials.”

And, in a cost-conscious health care system, quantity (length) of life tends to carry more weight than QOL, she said. “So it will be important that a trial using quality-of-life improvement as a primary endpoint mandates that the degree of improvement be large enough to ensure that the treatment remains high-value from a health economics standpoint.”

Dr. Stone disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baron reported financial relationships with Abiomed, Acarix, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll Medical, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Janssen.
 

The time has come to rethink the conventional primary endpoints investigators use in coronary revascularization trials – a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death or MI, and other endpoints – and shift toward greater emphasis on quality of life, two clinical trial investigators say.

Gregg Stone, MD, and Mario Gaudino, MD, MSCE, PhD, made their case in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, writing: “The classic academic exercise of comparing revascularization modalities in an elusive search for a clear ‘winner’ has failed.” Dr. Stone was the principal investigator of the landmark EXCEL trial and an investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial, the latter of which Dr. Gaudino was also an investigator. Both trials evaluated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) as treatments for coronary artery disease.

In an interview, Dr. Stone, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “We’re proposing a new endpoint called a composite endpoint measured in a hierarchical fashion of death or quality of life [QOL].” Dr. Gaudino is a cardiac surgeon at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
 

Quality of life as a validation tool

As a measure of revascularization after PCI or CABG, Dr. Stone said, QOL is ready for prime time. “Over the last 20 years there’s been a very rich literature of science developed linking certain quality of life instruments to improved outcomes, in particularly health but also heart failure.”

Those instruments include the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire. “All of these are sufficiently validated that the [Food and Drug Administration] considers them ‘validated tools’ for use in clinical trials.” Dr. Stone also noted that substudies of three landmark trials comparing PCI and CABG – EXCEL, SYNTAX, and FREEDOM – used those instruments to evaluate QOL as an endpoint alongside “hard” outcomes such as death, MI or stroke. “So quality of life already is being used and it is already widely accepted. What we’re saying is, when you think about the information you need for medical studies, we believe it’s time to elevate that from secondary supportive information to primary.”

He and Dr. Gaudino are putting their money where their mouths are. They’ve applied for a grant through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to use QOL as an outcomes measure in a trial of revascularization strategies in women and minority patients.
 

Shortcomings with traditional endpoints

Dr. Stone explained some of the shortcomings with the traditional endpoints revascularization studies have used. “Everybody agrees that mortality or survival is the most important endpoint, but studies can never be large enough to be powered for that. So we always end up combining them with myocardial infarction, stroke, and often with repeat revascularization” into one MACE endpoint.

But those four types of events are “very, very different,” Dr. Stone said. The severity of MIs and strokes can range from minor, almost inconsequential events to major, debilitating events. “Some strokes resolve in a few days but we count them all the same.”

He ticked off a list of the other outcomes the traditional endpoints don’t account for: atrial fibrillation, kidney dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, cognitive changes, and vascular complications. They all can all have a significant impact on a patient’s QOL, Dr. Stone said.

“We’ve now entered an era that is much more patient centered,” Dr. Stone said. “My goal as a physician is to try to impart my knowledge of the evidence that’s out there so that the patient can make the decision that gives them the best chance of meeting their life goals and objectives. When you ask patients what they want, they all want to live longer and they want to live better.”

Mass General

MACE as a composite endpoint has its shortcomings, but using QOL can also be fraught with problems, said Suzanne Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

With regards to MACE, she echoed some of Dr. Stone’s concerns. “Patients and clinicians likely would not consider a repeat stenting procedure to be the same as having a stroke, and so weighting these two outcomes equally within a composite endpoint can potentially result in a skewed trial conclusion.”

One potential issue with QOL as an endpoint is that it can vary from day to day. “If quality of life is only measured at a few time points, such as annually, it is possible that those measurements may only reflect a small portion of the patient’s overall quality of life,” she said. “Accordingly, I think that it will be important to incorporate frequent assessments of a patient’s quality of life if these measures will be used as a primary endpoint in cardiac revascularization trials.”

And, in a cost-conscious health care system, quantity (length) of life tends to carry more weight than QOL, she said. “So it will be important that a trial using quality-of-life improvement as a primary endpoint mandates that the degree of improvement be large enough to ensure that the treatment remains high-value from a health economics standpoint.”

Dr. Stone disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baron reported financial relationships with Abiomed, Acarix, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll Medical, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Janssen.
 

The largest multicenter randomized trial to date of CT angiography before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) to treat atrial fibrillation has added to the evidence that the imaging technique on top of transesophageal echocardiography achieves a higher degree of short- and long-term success than TEE alone.

The results are from a subanalysis of the Swiss-Apero trial, a randomized comparative trial of the Watchman and Amulet devices for LAAC, which published results in Circulation.

“Our observational data support to use of CT for LAAC procedure planning,” senior investigator Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “This is not very surprising given the high variability of the LAA anatomy and the associated complexity of the procedure.” Dr. Räber is director of the catheterization laboratory at Inselspital, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The study, published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, included 219 LAAC procedures in which the operators performed coronary CT angiography (CTTA) beforehand. When the investigators designed the study, LAAC procedures were typically planned using TEE alone, and so participating operators were blinded to preprocedural CCTA imaging. Soon after the study launch, European cardiology societies issued a consensus statement that included CCTA as an option for procedure planning. So the Swiss-Apero investigators changed the subanalysis protocol to unblind the operators – that is, they were permitted to plan LAAC procedures with CCTA imaging in addition to TEE. In this subanalysis, most patients had implantation with blinding to CCTA (57.9% vs. 41.2%).
 

Study results

The subanalysis determined that operator unblinding to preprocedural CCTA resulted in better success with LAAC, both in the short term, at 93.5% vs. 81.1% (P = .009; adjusted odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-7.29; P = .40) and the long term, at 83.7% vs. 72.4% (P = .050; aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.03-4.35; P = .041).

Dr. Räber noted that this is only the third study to date that examined the potential impact of preprocedural CCTA plus TEE. One was a small study of 24 consecutive LAAC procedures with the Watchman device that compared TEE alone and CCTA plus TEE, finding better outcomes in the group that had both imaging modalities . A larger, single-center cohort study of 485 LAAC Watchman procedures found that CCTA resulted in faster operation times and higher successful device implantation rates, but no significant difference in procedural complications.

Dr. Räber explained why his group’s subanalysis may have found a clinical benefit with CCTA on top of TEE. “Our study was much larger, as compared to the randomized clinical trial, and there was no selection bias as in the second study mentioned before, as operators did not have the option to decide whether or not to assess the CCTA prior to the procedure,” he said. “Finally, in the previous studies there was no random allocation of device type” – that is, Amulet versus Watchman.

One study limitation Dr. Räber noted was that significantly more patients in the blinded group were discharged with dual-antiplatelet therapy. “The lower rate of procedure complications observed in unblinded procedures was mostly driven by a lower number of major bleedings and in particular of pericardial tamponade,” he said. “We cannot therefore exclude that the higher percentage of patients under dual-antiplatelet therapy in the CCTA-blinded group might have favored this difference.”

However, he noted the investigators corrected their analysis to account for differences between the groups. “Importantly, the numerical excess in major procedural bleeding was observed within both the single-antiplatelet therapy and dual-antiplatelet therapy subgroups of the TEE-only group.”

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Brian O’Neill, MD, and Dee Dee Wang, MD, both with the Center for Structural Heard Disease at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, noted that the Swiss-Apero subanalysis “reinforced” the benefit of CCTA before LAAC.  

“This study demonstrated, for the first time, improved short- and long-term procedural success using CT in addition to TEE for left atrial appendage occlusion,” Dr. O’Neill said in an interview. “This particular study may serve as a guide to an adequately powered randomized trial of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.” Future LAAC trials should incorporate preprocedural CCTA.

Dr. O’Neill noted that, as a subanalysis of a randomized trial, the “results are hypothesis generating.” However, he added, “the results are in line with several previous studies of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.”

Dr Räber disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Infraredx, Heartflow, Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Canon, Occlutech, and Vifor. Dr. O’Neill disclosed financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular.

The largest multicenter randomized trial to date of CT angiography before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) to treat atrial fibrillation has added to the evidence that the imaging technique on top of transesophageal echocardiography achieves a higher degree of short- and long-term success than TEE alone.

The results are from a subanalysis of the Swiss-Apero trial, a randomized comparative trial of the Watchman and Amulet devices for LAAC, which published results in Circulation.

“Our observational data support to use of CT for LAAC procedure planning,” senior investigator Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “This is not very surprising given the high variability of the LAA anatomy and the associated complexity of the procedure.” Dr. Räber is director of the catheterization laboratory at Inselspital, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The study, published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, included 219 LAAC procedures in which the operators performed coronary CT angiography (CTTA) beforehand. When the investigators designed the study, LAAC procedures were typically planned using TEE alone, and so participating operators were blinded to preprocedural CCTA imaging. Soon after the study launch, European cardiology societies issued a consensus statement that included CCTA as an option for procedure planning. So the Swiss-Apero investigators changed the subanalysis protocol to unblind the operators – that is, they were permitted to plan LAAC procedures with CCTA imaging in addition to TEE. In this subanalysis, most patients had implantation with blinding to CCTA (57.9% vs. 41.2%).
 

Study results

The subanalysis determined that operator unblinding to preprocedural CCTA resulted in better success with LAAC, both in the short term, at 93.5% vs. 81.1% (P = .009; adjusted odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-7.29; P = .40) and the long term, at 83.7% vs. 72.4% (P = .050; aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.03-4.35; P = .041).

Dr. Räber noted that this is only the third study to date that examined the potential impact of preprocedural CCTA plus TEE. One was a small study of 24 consecutive LAAC procedures with the Watchman device that compared TEE alone and CCTA plus TEE, finding better outcomes in the group that had both imaging modalities . A larger, single-center cohort study of 485 LAAC Watchman procedures found that CCTA resulted in faster operation times and higher successful device implantation rates, but no significant difference in procedural complications.

Dr. Räber explained why his group’s subanalysis may have found a clinical benefit with CCTA on top of TEE. “Our study was much larger, as compared to the randomized clinical trial, and there was no selection bias as in the second study mentioned before, as operators did not have the option to decide whether or not to assess the CCTA prior to the procedure,” he said. “Finally, in the previous studies there was no random allocation of device type” – that is, Amulet versus Watchman.

One study limitation Dr. Räber noted was that significantly more patients in the blinded group were discharged with dual-antiplatelet therapy. “The lower rate of procedure complications observed in unblinded procedures was mostly driven by a lower number of major bleedings and in particular of pericardial tamponade,” he said. “We cannot therefore exclude that the higher percentage of patients under dual-antiplatelet therapy in the CCTA-blinded group might have favored this difference.”

However, he noted the investigators corrected their analysis to account for differences between the groups. “Importantly, the numerical excess in major procedural bleeding was observed within both the single-antiplatelet therapy and dual-antiplatelet therapy subgroups of the TEE-only group.”

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Brian O’Neill, MD, and Dee Dee Wang, MD, both with the Center for Structural Heard Disease at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, noted that the Swiss-Apero subanalysis “reinforced” the benefit of CCTA before LAAC.  

“This study demonstrated, for the first time, improved short- and long-term procedural success using CT in addition to TEE for left atrial appendage occlusion,” Dr. O’Neill said in an interview. “This particular study may serve as a guide to an adequately powered randomized trial of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.” Future LAAC trials should incorporate preprocedural CCTA.

Dr. O’Neill noted that, as a subanalysis of a randomized trial, the “results are hypothesis generating.” However, he added, “the results are in line with several previous studies of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.”

Dr Räber disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Infraredx, Heartflow, Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Canon, Occlutech, and Vifor. Dr. O’Neill disclosed financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular.

The largest multicenter randomized trial to date of CT angiography before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) to treat atrial fibrillation has added to the evidence that the imaging technique on top of transesophageal echocardiography achieves a higher degree of short- and long-term success than TEE alone.

The results are from a subanalysis of the Swiss-Apero trial, a randomized comparative trial of the Watchman and Amulet devices for LAAC, which published results in Circulation.

“Our observational data support to use of CT for LAAC procedure planning,” senior investigator Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “This is not very surprising given the high variability of the LAA anatomy and the associated complexity of the procedure.” Dr. Räber is director of the catheterization laboratory at Inselspital, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The study, published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, included 219 LAAC procedures in which the operators performed coronary CT angiography (CTTA) beforehand. When the investigators designed the study, LAAC procedures were typically planned using TEE alone, and so participating operators were blinded to preprocedural CCTA imaging. Soon after the study launch, European cardiology societies issued a consensus statement that included CCTA as an option for procedure planning. So the Swiss-Apero investigators changed the subanalysis protocol to unblind the operators – that is, they were permitted to plan LAAC procedures with CCTA imaging in addition to TEE. In this subanalysis, most patients had implantation with blinding to CCTA (57.9% vs. 41.2%).
 

Study results

The subanalysis determined that operator unblinding to preprocedural CCTA resulted in better success with LAAC, both in the short term, at 93.5% vs. 81.1% (P = .009; adjusted odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-7.29; P = .40) and the long term, at 83.7% vs. 72.4% (P = .050; aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.03-4.35; P = .041).

Dr. Räber noted that this is only the third study to date that examined the potential impact of preprocedural CCTA plus TEE. One was a small study of 24 consecutive LAAC procedures with the Watchman device that compared TEE alone and CCTA plus TEE, finding better outcomes in the group that had both imaging modalities . A larger, single-center cohort study of 485 LAAC Watchman procedures found that CCTA resulted in faster operation times and higher successful device implantation rates, but no significant difference in procedural complications.

Dr. Räber explained why his group’s subanalysis may have found a clinical benefit with CCTA on top of TEE. “Our study was much larger, as compared to the randomized clinical trial, and there was no selection bias as in the second study mentioned before, as operators did not have the option to decide whether or not to assess the CCTA prior to the procedure,” he said. “Finally, in the previous studies there was no random allocation of device type” – that is, Amulet versus Watchman.

One study limitation Dr. Räber noted was that significantly more patients in the blinded group were discharged with dual-antiplatelet therapy. “The lower rate of procedure complications observed in unblinded procedures was mostly driven by a lower number of major bleedings and in particular of pericardial tamponade,” he said. “We cannot therefore exclude that the higher percentage of patients under dual-antiplatelet therapy in the CCTA-blinded group might have favored this difference.”

However, he noted the investigators corrected their analysis to account for differences between the groups. “Importantly, the numerical excess in major procedural bleeding was observed within both the single-antiplatelet therapy and dual-antiplatelet therapy subgroups of the TEE-only group.”

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Brian O’Neill, MD, and Dee Dee Wang, MD, both with the Center for Structural Heard Disease at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, noted that the Swiss-Apero subanalysis “reinforced” the benefit of CCTA before LAAC.  

“This study demonstrated, for the first time, improved short- and long-term procedural success using CT in addition to TEE for left atrial appendage occlusion,” Dr. O’Neill said in an interview. “This particular study may serve as a guide to an adequately powered randomized trial of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.” Future LAAC trials should incorporate preprocedural CCTA.

Dr. O’Neill noted that, as a subanalysis of a randomized trial, the “results are hypothesis generating.” However, he added, “the results are in line with several previous studies of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.”

Dr Räber disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Infraredx, Heartflow, Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Canon, Occlutech, and Vifor. Dr. O’Neill disclosed financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular.

The sex of a red blood cell donor has no effect on the survival of a transfusion recipient, data suggest.

In a randomized clinical trial with almost 9,000 patients, the adjusted hazard ratio of death among recipients of female donors’ blood, compared with recipients of male donors’ blood, was 0.98. The data contradict the finding of previous observational studies that donor sex is associated with recipient outcomes.

“The key finding was that we actually had a null result,” study author Dean Fergusson, MD, PhD, senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said in an interview. “We went in thinking that male donor blood would confer a benefit over female donor blood, and we found that there’s absolutely no difference between the donor sexes on recipient outcomes – mortality and other major secondary outcomes,” Dr. Fergusson added.

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

Differences ‘don’t matter’

A 2015 article from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute identified a potential effect of donor sex on transfusion recipient survival. Since then, several observational studies have suggested that donor sex may influence survival after transfusion. This research includes two large studies, one from Canada and one from the Netherlands, that reported a heightened risk of death among recipients of red-cell units from female donors or donors who had been pregnant. Other studies, however, yielded conflicting results.

“The rationale was that female blood, because of biochemical properties, different hormones, exposure to babies and other males, all led to a different product, if you will, and these subtle changes could affect the blood product in terms of shelf life and potency,” said Dr. Fergusson. “That itself would have downstream effects on the recipient.”

The current double-blind study included 8,719 patients who received transfusions from September 2018 to December 2020 at three academic medical centers in Canada. Of this group, 5,190 received male donor blood, and 3,529 received blood from female donors.

The researchers randomly assigned patients in a 60:40 ratio to male and female donor groups. Data collection and follow-up were performed by the Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse, Canadian Blood Services, and ICES, an independent research institute. Patient characteristics were similar in both trial groups at baseline.

After an average follow-up of 11.2 months, with a maximum follow-up of 29 months, 1,141 patients in the female donor group and 1,712 in the male donor group died. The study found no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the two groups. The unadjusted HR for death, with the male group as the reference, was 0.97, and the adjusted HR was 0.98. The rates of overall survival were 58% and 56.1% in the female and male donor groups, respectively.

The study did not prove that differences in outcome based on donor sex do not exist, said Dr. Fergusson. “But those differences really don’t matter in the recipient.”

The design of the trial itself was unique, Dr. Fergusson said. After patients consented to participate and underwent randomization, the study used routinely collected data from the participating hospitals’ electronic medical records rather than collect data anew for each patient. “That had a profound effect on the efficiency of the trial. We did this trial for a cost of less than $300,000, and typically it would cost $9 million by using high-quality electronic health data.”

The study also evaluated several secondary outcomes. Recipients of female donor blood had twice the incidence of MRSA infection. In addition, an unadjusted subgroup analysis suggested a 10% lower risk of death among male patients assigned to the female donor group, compared with those assigned to the male donor group.

The risk of death was almost three times higher among patients in the female donor group who received units from donors aged 20-29.9 years (HR, 2.93). “The inconsistency of the point estimates across groups and the multiplicity of analyses increase the risk that those findings were due to chance,” according to the authors.
 

Big data

Commenting on the study, Jeannie Callum, MD, professor and director of transfusion medicine at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said that the use of routinely collected data from the participating hospitals’ electronic medical records was “one of the really great things about this paper.”

This use of Big Data “allows you to do a trial like this with almost 9,000 patients without spending millions and millions of dollars to have people go through charts and record data,” she added.

Dr. Callum also pointed out some of the trial’s limitations. “One of the things that kind of detracts from the study in my mind is that they randomized everybody that was getting a transfusion, but outpatients getting a transfusion have a very low mortality rate. So, you have a group of patients that are never going to have that endpoint being included in the study, and that might’ve diluted the findings.”

About 11.4% of participants received blood from a donor group other than the one to which they had been assigned, and this factor may further dilute the findings, said Dr. Callum. “That’s a difficult thing to avoid.” She noted that a trial in which she is collaborating, called Sex Matters, may answer some of these questions about the use of female versus male donor blood.

The investigators also noted that the findings may not be generalizable to other countries. “Just because we didn’t find something in Canada with our blood production system doesn’t mean that the United States might not find it different, because how they manufacture their red blood cells for transfusion is different than how we do them in Canada,” said Dr. Callum.

Nonetheless, this study shows the potential of using Big Data in medicine. “This is the future of large randomized clinical trials to quickly answer questions,” said Dr. Callum. “In the United States, Canada, and other countries that have these large electronic medical records systems, this kind of trial would be able to be done in other centers.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fergusson and Dr. Callum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The sex of a red blood cell donor has no effect on the survival of a transfusion recipient, data suggest.

In a randomized clinical trial with almost 9,000 patients, the adjusted hazard ratio of death among recipients of female donors’ blood, compared with recipients of male donors’ blood, was 0.98. The data contradict the finding of previous observational studies that donor sex is associated with recipient outcomes.

“The key finding was that we actually had a null result,” study author Dean Fergusson, MD, PhD, senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said in an interview. “We went in thinking that male donor blood would confer a benefit over female donor blood, and we found that there’s absolutely no difference between the donor sexes on recipient outcomes – mortality and other major secondary outcomes,” Dr. Fergusson added.

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

Differences ‘don’t matter’

A 2015 article from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute identified a potential effect of donor sex on transfusion recipient survival. Since then, several observational studies have suggested that donor sex may influence survival after transfusion. This research includes two large studies, one from Canada and one from the Netherlands, that reported a heightened risk of death among recipients of red-cell units from female donors or donors who had been pregnant. Other studies, however, yielded conflicting results.

“The rationale was that female blood, because of biochemical properties, different hormones, exposure to babies and other males, all led to a different product, if you will, and these subtle changes could affect the blood product in terms of shelf life and potency,” said Dr. Fergusson. “That itself would have downstream effects on the recipient.”

The current double-blind study included 8,719 patients who received transfusions from September 2018 to December 2020 at three academic medical centers in Canada. Of this group, 5,190 received male donor blood, and 3,529 received blood from female donors.

The researchers randomly assigned patients in a 60:40 ratio to male and female donor groups. Data collection and follow-up were performed by the Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse, Canadian Blood Services, and ICES, an independent research institute. Patient characteristics were similar in both trial groups at baseline.

After an average follow-up of 11.2 months, with a maximum follow-up of 29 months, 1,141 patients in the female donor group and 1,712 in the male donor group died. The study found no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the two groups. The unadjusted HR for death, with the male group as the reference, was 0.97, and the adjusted HR was 0.98. The rates of overall survival were 58% and 56.1% in the female and male donor groups, respectively.

The study did not prove that differences in outcome based on donor sex do not exist, said Dr. Fergusson. “But those differences really don’t matter in the recipient.”

The design of the trial itself was unique, Dr. Fergusson said. After patients consented to participate and underwent randomization, the study used routinely collected data from the participating hospitals’ electronic medical records rather than collect data anew for each patient. “That had a profound effect on the efficiency of the trial. We did this trial for a cost of less than $300,000, and typically it would cost $9 million by using high-quality electronic health data.”

The study also evaluated several secondary outcomes. Recipients of female donor blood had twice the incidence of MRSA infection. In addition, an unadjusted subgroup analysis suggested a 10% lower risk of death among male patients assigned to the female donor group, compared with those assigned to the male donor group.

The risk of death was almost three times higher among patients in the female donor group who received units from donors aged 20-29.9 years (HR, 2.93). “The inconsistency of the point estimates across groups and the multiplicity of analyses increase the risk that those findings were due to chance,” according to the authors.
 

Big data

Commenting on the study, Jeannie Callum, MD, professor and director of transfusion medicine at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said that the use of routinely collected data from the participating hospitals’ electronic medical records was “one of the really great things about this paper.”

This use of Big Data “allows you to do a trial like this with almost 9,000 patients without spending millions and millions of dollars to have people go through charts and record data,” she added.

Dr. Callum also pointed out some of the trial’s limitations. “One of the things that kind of detracts from the study in my mind is that they randomized everybody that was getting a transfusion, but outpatients getting a transfusion have a very low mortality rate. So, you have a group of patients that are never going to have that endpoint being included in the study, and that might’ve diluted the findings.”

About 11.4% of participants received blood from a donor group other than the one to which they had been assigned, and this factor may further dilute the findings, said Dr. Callum. “That’s a difficult thing to avoid.” She noted that a trial in which she is collaborating, called Sex Matters, may answer some of these questions about the use of female versus male donor blood.

The investigators also noted that the findings may not be generalizable to other countries. “Just because we didn’t find something in Canada with our blood production system doesn’t mean that the United States might not find it different, because how they manufacture their red blood cells for transfusion is different than how we do them in Canada,” said Dr. Callum.

Nonetheless, this study shows the potential of using Big Data in medicine. “This is the future of large randomized clinical trials to quickly answer questions,” said Dr. Callum. “In the United States, Canada, and other countries that have these large electronic medical records systems, this kind of trial would be able to be done in other centers.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fergusson and Dr. Callum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The sex of a red blood cell donor has no effect on the survival of a transfusion recipient, data suggest.

In a randomized clinical trial with almost 9,000 patients, the adjusted hazard ratio of death among recipients of female donors’ blood, compared with recipients of male donors’ blood, was 0.98. The data contradict the finding of previous observational studies that donor sex is associated with recipient outcomes.

“The key finding was that we actually had a null result,” study author Dean Fergusson, MD, PhD, senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said in an interview. “We went in thinking that male donor blood would confer a benefit over female donor blood, and we found that there’s absolutely no difference between the donor sexes on recipient outcomes – mortality and other major secondary outcomes,” Dr. Fergusson added.

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

Differences ‘don’t matter’

A 2015 article from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute identified a potential effect of donor sex on transfusion recipient survival. Since then, several observational studies have suggested that donor sex may influence survival after transfusion. This research includes two large studies, one from Canada and one from the Netherlands, that reported a heightened risk of death among recipients of red-cell units from female donors or donors who had been pregnant. Other studies, however, yielded conflicting results.

“The rationale was that female blood, because of biochemical properties, different hormones, exposure to babies and other males, all led to a different product, if you will, and these subtle changes could affect the blood product in terms of shelf life and potency,” said Dr. Fergusson. “That itself would have downstream effects on the recipient.”

The current double-blind study included 8,719 patients who received transfusions from September 2018 to December 2020 at three academic medical centers in Canada. Of this group, 5,190 received male donor blood, and 3,529 received blood from female donors.

The researchers randomly assigned patients in a 60:40 ratio to male and female donor groups. Data collection and follow-up were performed by the Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse, Canadian Blood Services, and ICES, an independent research institute. Patient characteristics were similar in both trial groups at baseline.

After an average follow-up of 11.2 months, with a maximum follow-up of 29 months, 1,141 patients in the female donor group and 1,712 in the male donor group died. The study found no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the two groups. The unadjusted HR for death, with the male group as the reference, was 0.97, and the adjusted HR was 0.98. The rates of overall survival were 58% and 56.1% in the female and male donor groups, respectively.

The study did not prove that differences in outcome based on donor sex do not exist, said Dr. Fergusson. “But those differences really don’t matter in the recipient.”

The design of the trial itself was unique, Dr. Fergusson said. After patients consented to participate and underwent randomization, the study used routinely collected data from the participating hospitals’ electronic medical records rather than collect data anew for each patient. “That had a profound effect on the efficiency of the trial. We did this trial for a cost of less than $300,000, and typically it would cost $9 million by using high-quality electronic health data.”

The study also evaluated several secondary outcomes. Recipients of female donor blood had twice the incidence of MRSA infection. In addition, an unadjusted subgroup analysis suggested a 10% lower risk of death among male patients assigned to the female donor group, compared with those assigned to the male donor group.

The risk of death was almost three times higher among patients in the female donor group who received units from donors aged 20-29.9 years (HR, 2.93). “The inconsistency of the point estimates across groups and the multiplicity of analyses increase the risk that those findings were due to chance,” according to the authors.
 

Big data

Commenting on the study, Jeannie Callum, MD, professor and director of transfusion medicine at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said that the use of routinely collected data from the participating hospitals’ electronic medical records was “one of the really great things about this paper.”

This use of Big Data “allows you to do a trial like this with almost 9,000 patients without spending millions and millions of dollars to have people go through charts and record data,” she added.

Dr. Callum also pointed out some of the trial’s limitations. “One of the things that kind of detracts from the study in my mind is that they randomized everybody that was getting a transfusion, but outpatients getting a transfusion have a very low mortality rate. So, you have a group of patients that are never going to have that endpoint being included in the study, and that might’ve diluted the findings.”

About 11.4% of participants received blood from a donor group other than the one to which they had been assigned, and this factor may further dilute the findings, said Dr. Callum. “That’s a difficult thing to avoid.” She noted that a trial in which she is collaborating, called Sex Matters, may answer some of these questions about the use of female versus male donor blood.

The investigators also noted that the findings may not be generalizable to other countries. “Just because we didn’t find something in Canada with our blood production system doesn’t mean that the United States might not find it different, because how they manufacture their red blood cells for transfusion is different than how we do them in Canada,” said Dr. Callum.

Nonetheless, this study shows the potential of using Big Data in medicine. “This is the future of large randomized clinical trials to quickly answer questions,” said Dr. Callum. “In the United States, Canada, and other countries that have these large electronic medical records systems, this kind of trial would be able to be done in other centers.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fergusson and Dr. Callum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An updated consensus statement on transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has put a newfound focus on patient selection for the procedure, specifically recommending that the procedure is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who have risk for thromboembolism, aren’t well suited for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and have a good chance of living for at least another year.

The statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, also makes recommendations for how much experience operators should have, how many procedures they should perform to keep their skills up, and when and how to use imaging and prescribe DOACs, among other suggestions.

The statement represents the first updated guidance for LAAC since 2015. “Since then this field has really expanded and evolved,” writing group chair Jacqueline Saw, MD, said in an interview. “For instance, the indications are more matured and specific, and the procedural technical steps have matured. Imaging has also advanced, there’s more understanding about postprocedural care and there are also new devices that have been approved.”

Dr. Saw, an interventional cardiologist at Vancouver General Hospital and St. Paul’s Hospital, and a professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, called the statement “a piece that puts everything together.”

“This document really summarizes the whole practice for doing transcatheter procedures,” she added, “so it’s all-in-one document in terms of recommendation of who we do the procedure for, how we should do it, how we should image and guide the procedure, and what complications to look out for and how to manage patients post procedure, be it with antithrombotic therapy and/or device surveillance.”

 13 recommendations

In all, the statement carries 13 recommendations for LAAC. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions and the Heart Rhythm Society commissioned the writing group. The American College of Cardiology and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography have endorsed the statement. The following are among the recommendations:

• Transcatheter LAAC is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with high thromboembolic risk but for whom long-term oral anticoagulation may be contraindicated and who have at least 1 year’s life expectancy.
• Operators should have performed at least 50 prior left-sided ablations or structural procedures and at least 25 transseptal punctures (TSPs). Interventional-imaging physicians should have experience in guiding 25 or more TSPs before supporting LAAC procedures independently.
• To maintain skills, operators should do 25 or more TSPs and at least 12 LAACs over each 2-year period.
• On-site cardiovascular surgery backup should be available for new programs and for operators early in their learning curve.
• Baseline imaging with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or cardiac computed tomography should be performed before LAAC.
• Intraprocedural imaging guidance with TEE or intracardiac echocardiography.
• Follow labeling of each specific LAAC device for technical aspects of the procedure.
• Familiarity with avoiding, recognizing, and managing LAAC complications.
• Predischarge 2-dimensional TEE to rule out pericardial effusion and device embolization.
• Anticoagulation for device-related thrombus.
• Make all efforts to minimize peridevice leaks during implantation because their clinical impact and management isn’t well understood.
• Antithrombotic therapy with warfarin, DOAC, or dual-antiplatelet therapy after LAAC based on the studied regimen and instructions for each specific device, tailored to the bleeding risks for each patient.
• TEE or cardiac computed tomography at 45-90 days after LAAC for device surveillance to assess for peridevice leak and device-related thrombus.

The statement also includes precautionary recommendations. It advises against using routine closure of LAAC-associated iatrogenic atrial septal defects and states that combined procedures with LAAC, such as structural interventions and pulmonary vein isolation, should be avoided because randomized controlled trial data are pending.

“These recommendations are based upon data from updated publications and randomized trial data as well as large registries, including the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, so I think this is a very practical statement that puts all these pieces together for any budding interventionalist doing this procedure and even experienced operations,” Dr. Saw said.

Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed that the “rigorous standards” set out in the statement will help maintain “a high level of procedural safety in the setting of rapid expansion.”

The editorialists, Faisal M. Merchant, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, Minn., point out that the incidence of pericardial effusion has decreased from more than 5% in the pivotal Watchman trials to less than 1.5% in the most recent report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, which shows that more than 100,000 procedures have been performed in the United States.

But most important as the field moves forward, they stress, is patient selection. The recommendation of limiting patients to those with a life expectancy of 1 year “is a tacit recognition of the fact that the benefits of LAAC take time to accrue, and many older and frail patients are unlikely to derive meaningful benefit.”

Dr. Merchant and Dr. Alkhouli also note that there remains a conundrum in patient selection that remains from the original LAAC trials, which enrolled patients who were eligible for anticoagulation. “Somewhat paradoxically, after its approval, LAAC is mostly prescribed to patients who are not felt to be good anticoagulation candidates.” This leaves physicians “in the precarious position of extrapolating data to patients who were excluded from the original clinical trials.”

Therefore, the consensus statement “is right to put patient selection front and center in its recommendations, but as the field of LAAC comes of age, better evidence to support patient selection will be the real sign of maturity.”

Dr. Saw said she envisions another update over the next 2 years or so as ongoing clinical trials comparing DOAC and LAAC, namely the CHAMPION-AF and OPTION trials, report results.

Dr. Saw and Dr. Merchant, reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Alkhouli has financial ties to Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Philips.

An updated consensus statement on transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has put a newfound focus on patient selection for the procedure, specifically recommending that the procedure is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who have risk for thromboembolism, aren’t well suited for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and have a good chance of living for at least another year.

The statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, also makes recommendations for how much experience operators should have, how many procedures they should perform to keep their skills up, and when and how to use imaging and prescribe DOACs, among other suggestions.

The statement represents the first updated guidance for LAAC since 2015. “Since then this field has really expanded and evolved,” writing group chair Jacqueline Saw, MD, said in an interview. “For instance, the indications are more matured and specific, and the procedural technical steps have matured. Imaging has also advanced, there’s more understanding about postprocedural care and there are also new devices that have been approved.”

Dr. Saw, an interventional cardiologist at Vancouver General Hospital and St. Paul’s Hospital, and a professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, called the statement “a piece that puts everything together.”

“This document really summarizes the whole practice for doing transcatheter procedures,” she added, “so it’s all-in-one document in terms of recommendation of who we do the procedure for, how we should do it, how we should image and guide the procedure, and what complications to look out for and how to manage patients post procedure, be it with antithrombotic therapy and/or device surveillance.”

 13 recommendations

In all, the statement carries 13 recommendations for LAAC. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions and the Heart Rhythm Society commissioned the writing group. The American College of Cardiology and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography have endorsed the statement. The following are among the recommendations:

• Transcatheter LAAC is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with high thromboembolic risk but for whom long-term oral anticoagulation may be contraindicated and who have at least 1 year’s life expectancy.
• Operators should have performed at least 50 prior left-sided ablations or structural procedures and at least 25 transseptal punctures (TSPs). Interventional-imaging physicians should have experience in guiding 25 or more TSPs before supporting LAAC procedures independently.
• To maintain skills, operators should do 25 or more TSPs and at least 12 LAACs over each 2-year period.
• On-site cardiovascular surgery backup should be available for new programs and for operators early in their learning curve.
• Baseline imaging with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or cardiac computed tomography should be performed before LAAC.
• Intraprocedural imaging guidance with TEE or intracardiac echocardiography.
• Follow labeling of each specific LAAC device for technical aspects of the procedure.
• Familiarity with avoiding, recognizing, and managing LAAC complications.
• Predischarge 2-dimensional TEE to rule out pericardial effusion and device embolization.
• Anticoagulation for device-related thrombus.
• Make all efforts to minimize peridevice leaks during implantation because their clinical impact and management isn’t well understood.
• Antithrombotic therapy with warfarin, DOAC, or dual-antiplatelet therapy after LAAC based on the studied regimen and instructions for each specific device, tailored to the bleeding risks for each patient.
• TEE or cardiac computed tomography at 45-90 days after LAAC for device surveillance to assess for peridevice leak and device-related thrombus.

The statement also includes precautionary recommendations. It advises against using routine closure of LAAC-associated iatrogenic atrial septal defects and states that combined procedures with LAAC, such as structural interventions and pulmonary vein isolation, should be avoided because randomized controlled trial data are pending.

“These recommendations are based upon data from updated publications and randomized trial data as well as large registries, including the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, so I think this is a very practical statement that puts all these pieces together for any budding interventionalist doing this procedure and even experienced operations,” Dr. Saw said.

Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed that the “rigorous standards” set out in the statement will help maintain “a high level of procedural safety in the setting of rapid expansion.”

The editorialists, Faisal M. Merchant, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, Minn., point out that the incidence of pericardial effusion has decreased from more than 5% in the pivotal Watchman trials to less than 1.5% in the most recent report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, which shows that more than 100,000 procedures have been performed in the United States.

But most important as the field moves forward, they stress, is patient selection. The recommendation of limiting patients to those with a life expectancy of 1 year “is a tacit recognition of the fact that the benefits of LAAC take time to accrue, and many older and frail patients are unlikely to derive meaningful benefit.”

Dr. Merchant and Dr. Alkhouli also note that there remains a conundrum in patient selection that remains from the original LAAC trials, which enrolled patients who were eligible for anticoagulation. “Somewhat paradoxically, after its approval, LAAC is mostly prescribed to patients who are not felt to be good anticoagulation candidates.” This leaves physicians “in the precarious position of extrapolating data to patients who were excluded from the original clinical trials.”

Therefore, the consensus statement “is right to put patient selection front and center in its recommendations, but as the field of LAAC comes of age, better evidence to support patient selection will be the real sign of maturity.”

Dr. Saw said she envisions another update over the next 2 years or so as ongoing clinical trials comparing DOAC and LAAC, namely the CHAMPION-AF and OPTION trials, report results.

Dr. Saw and Dr. Merchant, reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Alkhouli has financial ties to Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Philips.

An updated consensus statement on transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has put a newfound focus on patient selection for the procedure, specifically recommending that the procedure is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who have risk for thromboembolism, aren’t well suited for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and have a good chance of living for at least another year.

The statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, also makes recommendations for how much experience operators should have, how many procedures they should perform to keep their skills up, and when and how to use imaging and prescribe DOACs, among other suggestions.

The statement represents the first updated guidance for LAAC since 2015. “Since then this field has really expanded and evolved,” writing group chair Jacqueline Saw, MD, said in an interview. “For instance, the indications are more matured and specific, and the procedural technical steps have matured. Imaging has also advanced, there’s more understanding about postprocedural care and there are also new devices that have been approved.”

Dr. Saw, an interventional cardiologist at Vancouver General Hospital and St. Paul’s Hospital, and a professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, called the statement “a piece that puts everything together.”

“This document really summarizes the whole practice for doing transcatheter procedures,” she added, “so it’s all-in-one document in terms of recommendation of who we do the procedure for, how we should do it, how we should image and guide the procedure, and what complications to look out for and how to manage patients post procedure, be it with antithrombotic therapy and/or device surveillance.”

 13 recommendations

In all, the statement carries 13 recommendations for LAAC. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions and the Heart Rhythm Society commissioned the writing group. The American College of Cardiology and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography have endorsed the statement. The following are among the recommendations:

• Transcatheter LAAC is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with high thromboembolic risk but for whom long-term oral anticoagulation may be contraindicated and who have at least 1 year’s life expectancy.
• Operators should have performed at least 50 prior left-sided ablations or structural procedures and at least 25 transseptal punctures (TSPs). Interventional-imaging physicians should have experience in guiding 25 or more TSPs before supporting LAAC procedures independently.
• To maintain skills, operators should do 25 or more TSPs and at least 12 LAACs over each 2-year period.
• On-site cardiovascular surgery backup should be available for new programs and for operators early in their learning curve.
• Baseline imaging with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or cardiac computed tomography should be performed before LAAC.
• Intraprocedural imaging guidance with TEE or intracardiac echocardiography.
• Follow labeling of each specific LAAC device for technical aspects of the procedure.
• Familiarity with avoiding, recognizing, and managing LAAC complications.
• Predischarge 2-dimensional TEE to rule out pericardial effusion and device embolization.
• Anticoagulation for device-related thrombus.
• Make all efforts to minimize peridevice leaks during implantation because their clinical impact and management isn’t well understood.
• Antithrombotic therapy with warfarin, DOAC, or dual-antiplatelet therapy after LAAC based on the studied regimen and instructions for each specific device, tailored to the bleeding risks for each patient.
• TEE or cardiac computed tomography at 45-90 days after LAAC for device surveillance to assess for peridevice leak and device-related thrombus.

The statement also includes precautionary recommendations. It advises against using routine closure of LAAC-associated iatrogenic atrial septal defects and states that combined procedures with LAAC, such as structural interventions and pulmonary vein isolation, should be avoided because randomized controlled trial data are pending.

“These recommendations are based upon data from updated publications and randomized trial data as well as large registries, including the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, so I think this is a very practical statement that puts all these pieces together for any budding interventionalist doing this procedure and even experienced operations,” Dr. Saw said.

Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed that the “rigorous standards” set out in the statement will help maintain “a high level of procedural safety in the setting of rapid expansion.”

The editorialists, Faisal M. Merchant, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, Minn., point out that the incidence of pericardial effusion has decreased from more than 5% in the pivotal Watchman trials to less than 1.5% in the most recent report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, which shows that more than 100,000 procedures have been performed in the United States.

But most important as the field moves forward, they stress, is patient selection. The recommendation of limiting patients to those with a life expectancy of 1 year “is a tacit recognition of the fact that the benefits of LAAC take time to accrue, and many older and frail patients are unlikely to derive meaningful benefit.”

Dr. Merchant and Dr. Alkhouli also note that there remains a conundrum in patient selection that remains from the original LAAC trials, which enrolled patients who were eligible for anticoagulation. “Somewhat paradoxically, after its approval, LAAC is mostly prescribed to patients who are not felt to be good anticoagulation candidates.” This leaves physicians “in the precarious position of extrapolating data to patients who were excluded from the original clinical trials.”

Therefore, the consensus statement “is right to put patient selection front and center in its recommendations, but as the field of LAAC comes of age, better evidence to support patient selection will be the real sign of maturity.”

Dr. Saw said she envisions another update over the next 2 years or so as ongoing clinical trials comparing DOAC and LAAC, namely the CHAMPION-AF and OPTION trials, report results.

Dr. Saw and Dr. Merchant, reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Alkhouli has financial ties to Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Philips.

Disparities in statin use in minority populations persist regardless of insurance status and 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Those are among the findings of a study that sampled a national population database and has provided robust data and granular details on those disparities.

The researchers reported in JAMA Cardiology that the overall prevalence of statin use was 25.5%, and that it varied significantly between defined ethnic groups: 20% for Blacks, 15.4% for Hispanics, and 27.9% for Whites (P < .001). Statin use rates by Asian participants, at 25.5%, didn’t differ significantly from use by Whites.

University of Utah Intermountain Health

“We know that there are racial and ethnic disparities in the use of guideline-indicated statins after having established heart disease, but it was unknown if these disparities existed in the use of guideline-indicated statins for prevention of heart disease in those who just have risk factors,” lead author Joshua Jacobs, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah Intermountain Healthcare, said in written comments. “Additionally, race is included in the guideline-recommended risk factor calculation in an effort to reduce these disparities.”

Dr. Jacobs and colleagues evaluated statins for use in primary prevention, building upon previous single-center or diabetes-only cohort studies. What makes their study different from previous studies evaluating disparities in statin use is its use of temporal trends or current 10-year predicted ASCVD risk categorization, he said.

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the researchers performed a serial, cross-sectional analysis of 3,417 participants that they said represented 39.4 million U.S. adults after applying sampling weights for age, gender, and race and ethnicity. In the weighted sample, 62.2% were men. In terms of self-reported race and ethnicity, 4.2% were of Asian descent, 12.7% were Black, 10.1% were Hispanic, and 73% were White.

Study participants completed a standardized questionnaire given by trained interviewers and also went to mobile examination centers where physical, anthropomorphic, and laboratory measurements, including height, weight, LDL cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose were collected. Pill bottle review also verified participants’ self-reported medication use.

The study noted that for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline recommends statins for, among other patient factors, elevated 10-year predicted ASCVD risk. The study divided ASCVD risk strata into three groups – 5% to less than 7.5%, 7.5% to less than 20%, and more than 20% – based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline and used pooled cohort equation to calculate 10-year ASCVD risk, which the guideline endorses.

Gaps persist despite ASCVD risk

The analysis found no statistically significant difference within each ASCVD risk strata between the White and Asian groups. But although statin use increased proportionately across each higher risk group, the gap widened noticeably in the highest risk group (more than 20% 10-year risk) between Whites, used as the reference at 37.6%, and Blacks (23.8%; prevalence ratio, .90; 95% confidence interval, .82-.98) and Hispanics (23.9%; PR, .90; 95% CI, .81-.99).

The study also evaluated a number of social determinants of health factors. Health insurance and access to routine health care were significantly associated with greater statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White participants; marital status and food insecurity were not. However, even when variables such as education, household income, and health insurance were applied, statin use was still significantly higher in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics. For those with health insurance, statin use was 28.6% (95% CI, 25-32), 21.1% (95% CI, 17.3-25.4) and 19.9% (95% CI, 15.9-24.5), respectively.

The study noted that the pooled cohort equation-guided approach to statins for primary prevention, which the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline endorsed, should promote greater use of statins among Black patients. “Equitable use of statin therapy for prevention of heart disease is needed for Black and Hispanic adults,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Improvements in access to care, such as having a routine primary care clinician and health insurance, may decrease these health disparities.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

A goal of the study was to identify if disparities in statin use held up across different risk groups, senior author Ambarish Pandey, MD, said in an interview. Use of the NHANES data makes this study unique among analyses of statin use disparities, he said.

“A lot of the work that has been done previously has focused on secondary prevention among patients who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or have focused on single-center or hospital-based cohorts and have not really focused on a national representative cohort like NHANES,” said Dr. Pandey, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The next step is to do community-based participatory research focusing on different implementation strategies to increase the uptake of preventive statin use among Black and Hispanic communities, Dr. Jacobs said.

Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Pandey disclosed relationships with Gilead Sciences, Applied Therapeutics, Myovista, Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Rivus, Roche Diagnostics, Pieces Technologies, Palomarin, Emmi Solutions, and Axon.

Disparities in statin use in minority populations persist regardless of insurance status and 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Those are among the findings of a study that sampled a national population database and has provided robust data and granular details on those disparities.

The researchers reported in JAMA Cardiology that the overall prevalence of statin use was 25.5%, and that it varied significantly between defined ethnic groups: 20% for Blacks, 15.4% for Hispanics, and 27.9% for Whites (P < .001). Statin use rates by Asian participants, at 25.5%, didn’t differ significantly from use by Whites.

University of Utah Intermountain Health

“We know that there are racial and ethnic disparities in the use of guideline-indicated statins after having established heart disease, but it was unknown if these disparities existed in the use of guideline-indicated statins for prevention of heart disease in those who just have risk factors,” lead author Joshua Jacobs, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah Intermountain Healthcare, said in written comments. “Additionally, race is included in the guideline-recommended risk factor calculation in an effort to reduce these disparities.”

Dr. Jacobs and colleagues evaluated statins for use in primary prevention, building upon previous single-center or diabetes-only cohort studies. What makes their study different from previous studies evaluating disparities in statin use is its use of temporal trends or current 10-year predicted ASCVD risk categorization, he said.

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the researchers performed a serial, cross-sectional analysis of 3,417 participants that they said represented 39.4 million U.S. adults after applying sampling weights for age, gender, and race and ethnicity. In the weighted sample, 62.2% were men. In terms of self-reported race and ethnicity, 4.2% were of Asian descent, 12.7% were Black, 10.1% were Hispanic, and 73% were White.

Study participants completed a standardized questionnaire given by trained interviewers and also went to mobile examination centers where physical, anthropomorphic, and laboratory measurements, including height, weight, LDL cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose were collected. Pill bottle review also verified participants’ self-reported medication use.

The study noted that for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline recommends statins for, among other patient factors, elevated 10-year predicted ASCVD risk. The study divided ASCVD risk strata into three groups – 5% to less than 7.5%, 7.5% to less than 20%, and more than 20% – based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline and used pooled cohort equation to calculate 10-year ASCVD risk, which the guideline endorses.

Gaps persist despite ASCVD risk

The analysis found no statistically significant difference within each ASCVD risk strata between the White and Asian groups. But although statin use increased proportionately across each higher risk group, the gap widened noticeably in the highest risk group (more than 20% 10-year risk) between Whites, used as the reference at 37.6%, and Blacks (23.8%; prevalence ratio, .90; 95% confidence interval, .82-.98) and Hispanics (23.9%; PR, .90; 95% CI, .81-.99).

The study also evaluated a number of social determinants of health factors. Health insurance and access to routine health care were significantly associated with greater statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White participants; marital status and food insecurity were not. However, even when variables such as education, household income, and health insurance were applied, statin use was still significantly higher in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics. For those with health insurance, statin use was 28.6% (95% CI, 25-32), 21.1% (95% CI, 17.3-25.4) and 19.9% (95% CI, 15.9-24.5), respectively.

The study noted that the pooled cohort equation-guided approach to statins for primary prevention, which the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline endorsed, should promote greater use of statins among Black patients. “Equitable use of statin therapy for prevention of heart disease is needed for Black and Hispanic adults,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Improvements in access to care, such as having a routine primary care clinician and health insurance, may decrease these health disparities.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

A goal of the study was to identify if disparities in statin use held up across different risk groups, senior author Ambarish Pandey, MD, said in an interview. Use of the NHANES data makes this study unique among analyses of statin use disparities, he said.

“A lot of the work that has been done previously has focused on secondary prevention among patients who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or have focused on single-center or hospital-based cohorts and have not really focused on a national representative cohort like NHANES,” said Dr. Pandey, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The next step is to do community-based participatory research focusing on different implementation strategies to increase the uptake of preventive statin use among Black and Hispanic communities, Dr. Jacobs said.

Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Pandey disclosed relationships with Gilead Sciences, Applied Therapeutics, Myovista, Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Rivus, Roche Diagnostics, Pieces Technologies, Palomarin, Emmi Solutions, and Axon.

Disparities in statin use in minority populations persist regardless of insurance status and 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Those are among the findings of a study that sampled a national population database and has provided robust data and granular details on those disparities.

The researchers reported in JAMA Cardiology that the overall prevalence of statin use was 25.5%, and that it varied significantly between defined ethnic groups: 20% for Blacks, 15.4% for Hispanics, and 27.9% for Whites (P < .001). Statin use rates by Asian participants, at 25.5%, didn’t differ significantly from use by Whites.

University of Utah Intermountain Health

“We know that there are racial and ethnic disparities in the use of guideline-indicated statins after having established heart disease, but it was unknown if these disparities existed in the use of guideline-indicated statins for prevention of heart disease in those who just have risk factors,” lead author Joshua Jacobs, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah Intermountain Healthcare, said in written comments. “Additionally, race is included in the guideline-recommended risk factor calculation in an effort to reduce these disparities.”

Dr. Jacobs and colleagues evaluated statins for use in primary prevention, building upon previous single-center or diabetes-only cohort studies. What makes their study different from previous studies evaluating disparities in statin use is its use of temporal trends or current 10-year predicted ASCVD risk categorization, he said.

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the researchers performed a serial, cross-sectional analysis of 3,417 participants that they said represented 39.4 million U.S. adults after applying sampling weights for age, gender, and race and ethnicity. In the weighted sample, 62.2% were men. In terms of self-reported race and ethnicity, 4.2% were of Asian descent, 12.7% were Black, 10.1% were Hispanic, and 73% were White.

Study participants completed a standardized questionnaire given by trained interviewers and also went to mobile examination centers where physical, anthropomorphic, and laboratory measurements, including height, weight, LDL cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose were collected. Pill bottle review also verified participants’ self-reported medication use.

The study noted that for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline recommends statins for, among other patient factors, elevated 10-year predicted ASCVD risk. The study divided ASCVD risk strata into three groups – 5% to less than 7.5%, 7.5% to less than 20%, and more than 20% – based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline and used pooled cohort equation to calculate 10-year ASCVD risk, which the guideline endorses.

Gaps persist despite ASCVD risk

The analysis found no statistically significant difference within each ASCVD risk strata between the White and Asian groups. But although statin use increased proportionately across each higher risk group, the gap widened noticeably in the highest risk group (more than 20% 10-year risk) between Whites, used as the reference at 37.6%, and Blacks (23.8%; prevalence ratio, .90; 95% confidence interval, .82-.98) and Hispanics (23.9%; PR, .90; 95% CI, .81-.99).

The study also evaluated a number of social determinants of health factors. Health insurance and access to routine health care were significantly associated with greater statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White participants; marital status and food insecurity were not. However, even when variables such as education, household income, and health insurance were applied, statin use was still significantly higher in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics. For those with health insurance, statin use was 28.6% (95% CI, 25-32), 21.1% (95% CI, 17.3-25.4) and 19.9% (95% CI, 15.9-24.5), respectively.

The study noted that the pooled cohort equation-guided approach to statins for primary prevention, which the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline endorsed, should promote greater use of statins among Black patients. “Equitable use of statin therapy for prevention of heart disease is needed for Black and Hispanic adults,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Improvements in access to care, such as having a routine primary care clinician and health insurance, may decrease these health disparities.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

A goal of the study was to identify if disparities in statin use held up across different risk groups, senior author Ambarish Pandey, MD, said in an interview. Use of the NHANES data makes this study unique among analyses of statin use disparities, he said.

“A lot of the work that has been done previously has focused on secondary prevention among patients who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or have focused on single-center or hospital-based cohorts and have not really focused on a national representative cohort like NHANES,” said Dr. Pandey, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The next step is to do community-based participatory research focusing on different implementation strategies to increase the uptake of preventive statin use among Black and Hispanic communities, Dr. Jacobs said.

Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Pandey disclosed relationships with Gilead Sciences, Applied Therapeutics, Myovista, Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Rivus, Roche Diagnostics, Pieces Technologies, Palomarin, Emmi Solutions, and Axon.