MDedge Cardiology

 Patients who have had a myocardial infarction experience faster cognitive decline over time than immediately after the event, new research suggests.

Although cognition in the acute phase after MI was not different than those without an MI in large observational cohorts, cognitive decline became significantly different over a median 6.5 years of follow-up.

The results reinforce the idea that heart health is closely tied to brain health, lead study author Michelle C. Johansen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology cerebrovascular division, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “From a clinical standpoint, heart health affects brain health and there may be effective interventions to prevent heart attack from happening that could reduce the rate of cognitive decline.”

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Researchers are increasingly recognizing the vascular contribution to cognitive impairment, said Dr. Johansen. This could involve “silent” or subclinical strokes that go unrecognized until seen on imaging.

The study included 31,377 adults free of MI and dementia from six large, well-known cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, the Cardiovascular Health Study, the Framingham Offspring Study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, and the Northern Manhattan Study

About 56% of study participants were women, 23% were Black, 8% were Hispanic, and 69% were White.

They were followed from 1971 to 2017 with investigators repeatedly measuring vascular risk factors. The median study follow-up was 6.5 years, but some were followed for up to 20 years. During that time, there were 1,047 incident MIs.

The researchers performed a pooled analysis from these studies “using some fancy statistical techniques,” said Dr. Johansen. “The unique thing about this study was we were able to harmonize the cognitive measures.”

This allowed the researchers to determine if incident MI affected cognitive decline soon after the event and then long-term after the event. The primary outcome was change in global cognition. Additional outcomes were memory and executive function.

The median time between the first MI and the cognitive assessment was about 1.8 years but ranged from about 6 months to 4 years, said Dr. Johansen. Participants were a median age of 60 years at the time of the first cognitive assessment.

The researchers adjusted results for demographic factors, heart disease risk factors, and cognitive test results prior to the MI. Participants who had a stroke during the follow-up period were excluded from the analysis as stroke can affect cognition.

The study showed incident MI was associated with significant decline in global cognition (–0.71; 95% confidence interval, –1.02 to 0.42; P < .0001) and executive function (–0.68; 95% CI, –0.97 to 0.39; P < .004), but not memory, after the MI.

As cognition naturally declines with age, the researchers took that into consideration. “We anticipated cognition over time was going to go down, which it did, but the question we asked was: ‘How did the slope, which we knew was going to decline over time, compare in people who did not have a MI versus those that did?’ ” said Dr. Johansen.

After adjusting the model accordingly, the effect estimates indicating declines in global cognition and executive function were not significant.

However, another model that looked at the effect of incident MI on decline in cognitive function over the years following the event found significant differences.

Compared with participants without MI, those with incident MI had significantly faster declines in global cognition (–0.15 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.21 to –0.10; P < .002), memory (–0.13 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.04; P = .004), and executive function (–0.14 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.08; P < .0001).

Dr. Johansen surmised that MI may result in subclinical infarcts or inflammation, or that MI and cognitive decline have shared vascular risk factors.

She said she can only speculate about why there was not more of a cognitive decline surrounding the MI. “It may be that right after the event, subjects are kind of sick from other things so it’s hard to see exactly what’s going on. Sometimes people can have other problems just from being in the hospital and having a heart attack may make cognition difficult to assess.”

The researchers also looked at those who had a second MI. “We asked whether the decline we saw after the first heart attack among those who had two heart attacks was explained by the fact they had more than one heart attack, and the answer to that question is no,” Dr. Johansen said.

The next research steps for Dr. Johansen and associates are to look at differences in race and sex.

Karen L. Furie, MD, chair, department of neurology, Brown University, and chief of neurology at Rhode Island Hospital, the Miriam Hospital, and the Bradley Hospital, all in Providence, provided a comment on the research.

MI and cognitive decline have a number of common risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking, physical inactivity, and poor diet that can lead to obesity, said Dr. Furie.

“It’s critically important to identify these risk factors as early as possible,” she said. “People in early and middle life may not be receiving optimal medical management or engaging in ideal lifestyle choices and these contribute to the development and progression of atherosclerotic disease over the subsequent decades.”

In theory, she said, if these risk factors were eliminated or adequately treated earlier in life, “both the heart and brain could age naturally and in a healthy manner, enabling a higher functioning and better quality of life.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johansen receives research funding from NINDS.

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

 Patients who have had a myocardial infarction experience faster cognitive decline over time than immediately after the event, new research suggests.

Although cognition in the acute phase after MI was not different than those without an MI in large observational cohorts, cognitive decline became significantly different over a median 6.5 years of follow-up.

The results reinforce the idea that heart health is closely tied to brain health, lead study author Michelle C. Johansen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology cerebrovascular division, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “From a clinical standpoint, heart health affects brain health and there may be effective interventions to prevent heart attack from happening that could reduce the rate of cognitive decline.”

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Researchers are increasingly recognizing the vascular contribution to cognitive impairment, said Dr. Johansen. This could involve “silent” or subclinical strokes that go unrecognized until seen on imaging.

The study included 31,377 adults free of MI and dementia from six large, well-known cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, the Cardiovascular Health Study, the Framingham Offspring Study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, and the Northern Manhattan Study

About 56% of study participants were women, 23% were Black, 8% were Hispanic, and 69% were White.

They were followed from 1971 to 2017 with investigators repeatedly measuring vascular risk factors. The median study follow-up was 6.5 years, but some were followed for up to 20 years. During that time, there were 1,047 incident MIs.

The researchers performed a pooled analysis from these studies “using some fancy statistical techniques,” said Dr. Johansen. “The unique thing about this study was we were able to harmonize the cognitive measures.”

This allowed the researchers to determine if incident MI affected cognitive decline soon after the event and then long-term after the event. The primary outcome was change in global cognition. Additional outcomes were memory and executive function.

The median time between the first MI and the cognitive assessment was about 1.8 years but ranged from about 6 months to 4 years, said Dr. Johansen. Participants were a median age of 60 years at the time of the first cognitive assessment.

The researchers adjusted results for demographic factors, heart disease risk factors, and cognitive test results prior to the MI. Participants who had a stroke during the follow-up period were excluded from the analysis as stroke can affect cognition.

The study showed incident MI was associated with significant decline in global cognition (–0.71; 95% confidence interval, –1.02 to 0.42; P < .0001) and executive function (–0.68; 95% CI, –0.97 to 0.39; P < .004), but not memory, after the MI.

As cognition naturally declines with age, the researchers took that into consideration. “We anticipated cognition over time was going to go down, which it did, but the question we asked was: ‘How did the slope, which we knew was going to decline over time, compare in people who did not have a MI versus those that did?’ ” said Dr. Johansen.

After adjusting the model accordingly, the effect estimates indicating declines in global cognition and executive function were not significant.

However, another model that looked at the effect of incident MI on decline in cognitive function over the years following the event found significant differences.

Compared with participants without MI, those with incident MI had significantly faster declines in global cognition (–0.15 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.21 to –0.10; P < .002), memory (–0.13 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.04; P = .004), and executive function (–0.14 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.08; P < .0001).

Dr. Johansen surmised that MI may result in subclinical infarcts or inflammation, or that MI and cognitive decline have shared vascular risk factors.

She said she can only speculate about why there was not more of a cognitive decline surrounding the MI. “It may be that right after the event, subjects are kind of sick from other things so it’s hard to see exactly what’s going on. Sometimes people can have other problems just from being in the hospital and having a heart attack may make cognition difficult to assess.”

The researchers also looked at those who had a second MI. “We asked whether the decline we saw after the first heart attack among those who had two heart attacks was explained by the fact they had more than one heart attack, and the answer to that question is no,” Dr. Johansen said.

The next research steps for Dr. Johansen and associates are to look at differences in race and sex.

Karen L. Furie, MD, chair, department of neurology, Brown University, and chief of neurology at Rhode Island Hospital, the Miriam Hospital, and the Bradley Hospital, all in Providence, provided a comment on the research.

MI and cognitive decline have a number of common risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking, physical inactivity, and poor diet that can lead to obesity, said Dr. Furie.

“It’s critically important to identify these risk factors as early as possible,” she said. “People in early and middle life may not be receiving optimal medical management or engaging in ideal lifestyle choices and these contribute to the development and progression of atherosclerotic disease over the subsequent decades.”

In theory, she said, if these risk factors were eliminated or adequately treated earlier in life, “both the heart and brain could age naturally and in a healthy manner, enabling a higher functioning and better quality of life.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johansen receives research funding from NINDS.

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

 Patients who have had a myocardial infarction experience faster cognitive decline over time than immediately after the event, new research suggests.

Although cognition in the acute phase after MI was not different than those without an MI in large observational cohorts, cognitive decline became significantly different over a median 6.5 years of follow-up.

The results reinforce the idea that heart health is closely tied to brain health, lead study author Michelle C. Johansen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology cerebrovascular division, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “From a clinical standpoint, heart health affects brain health and there may be effective interventions to prevent heart attack from happening that could reduce the rate of cognitive decline.”

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Researchers are increasingly recognizing the vascular contribution to cognitive impairment, said Dr. Johansen. This could involve “silent” or subclinical strokes that go unrecognized until seen on imaging.

The study included 31,377 adults free of MI and dementia from six large, well-known cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, the Cardiovascular Health Study, the Framingham Offspring Study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, and the Northern Manhattan Study

About 56% of study participants were women, 23% were Black, 8% were Hispanic, and 69% were White.

They were followed from 1971 to 2017 with investigators repeatedly measuring vascular risk factors. The median study follow-up was 6.5 years, but some were followed for up to 20 years. During that time, there were 1,047 incident MIs.

The researchers performed a pooled analysis from these studies “using some fancy statistical techniques,” said Dr. Johansen. “The unique thing about this study was we were able to harmonize the cognitive measures.”

This allowed the researchers to determine if incident MI affected cognitive decline soon after the event and then long-term after the event. The primary outcome was change in global cognition. Additional outcomes were memory and executive function.

The median time between the first MI and the cognitive assessment was about 1.8 years but ranged from about 6 months to 4 years, said Dr. Johansen. Participants were a median age of 60 years at the time of the first cognitive assessment.

The researchers adjusted results for demographic factors, heart disease risk factors, and cognitive test results prior to the MI. Participants who had a stroke during the follow-up period were excluded from the analysis as stroke can affect cognition.

The study showed incident MI was associated with significant decline in global cognition (–0.71; 95% confidence interval, –1.02 to 0.42; P < .0001) and executive function (–0.68; 95% CI, –0.97 to 0.39; P < .004), but not memory, after the MI.

As cognition naturally declines with age, the researchers took that into consideration. “We anticipated cognition over time was going to go down, which it did, but the question we asked was: ‘How did the slope, which we knew was going to decline over time, compare in people who did not have a MI versus those that did?’ ” said Dr. Johansen.

After adjusting the model accordingly, the effect estimates indicating declines in global cognition and executive function were not significant.

However, another model that looked at the effect of incident MI on decline in cognitive function over the years following the event found significant differences.

Compared with participants without MI, those with incident MI had significantly faster declines in global cognition (–0.15 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.21 to –0.10; P < .002), memory (–0.13 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.04; P = .004), and executive function (–0.14 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.08; P < .0001).

Dr. Johansen surmised that MI may result in subclinical infarcts or inflammation, or that MI and cognitive decline have shared vascular risk factors.

She said she can only speculate about why there was not more of a cognitive decline surrounding the MI. “It may be that right after the event, subjects are kind of sick from other things so it’s hard to see exactly what’s going on. Sometimes people can have other problems just from being in the hospital and having a heart attack may make cognition difficult to assess.”

The researchers also looked at those who had a second MI. “We asked whether the decline we saw after the first heart attack among those who had two heart attacks was explained by the fact they had more than one heart attack, and the answer to that question is no,” Dr. Johansen said.

The next research steps for Dr. Johansen and associates are to look at differences in race and sex.

Karen L. Furie, MD, chair, department of neurology, Brown University, and chief of neurology at Rhode Island Hospital, the Miriam Hospital, and the Bradley Hospital, all in Providence, provided a comment on the research.

MI and cognitive decline have a number of common risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking, physical inactivity, and poor diet that can lead to obesity, said Dr. Furie.

“It’s critically important to identify these risk factors as early as possible,” she said. “People in early and middle life may not be receiving optimal medical management or engaging in ideal lifestyle choices and these contribute to the development and progression of atherosclerotic disease over the subsequent decades.”

In theory, she said, if these risk factors were eliminated or adequately treated earlier in life, “both the heart and brain could age naturally and in a healthy manner, enabling a higher functioning and better quality of life.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johansen receives research funding from NINDS.

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

Updated guidance for health care providers on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) recognizes the evolving nature of the disease and offers strategies for pediatric rheumatologists, who also may be asked to recommend treatment for hyperinflammation in children with acute COVID-19.

Guidance is needed for many reasons, including the variable case definitions for MIS-C, the presence of MIS-C features in other infections and childhood rheumatic diseases, the extrapolation of treatment strategies from other conditions with similar presentations, and the issue of myocardial dysfunction, wrote Lauren A. Henderson, MD, MMSC, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and members of the American College of Rheumatology MIS-C and COVID-19–Related Hyperinflammation Task Force.

However, “modifications to treatment plans, particularly in patients with complex conditions, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific, and therefore must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors said. The updated guidance was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Update needed in wake of Omicron

“We continue to see cases of MIS-C across the United States due to the spike in SARS-CoV-2 infections from the Omicron variant,” and therefore updated guidance is important at this time, Dr. Henderson told this news organization.

“MIS-C remains a serious complication of COVID-19 in children and the ACR wanted to continue to provide pediatricians with up-to-date recommendations for the management of MIS-C,” she said.

“Children began to present with MIS-C in April 2020. At that time, little was known about this entity. Most of the recommendations in the first version of the MIS-C guidance were based on expert opinion,” she explained. However, “over the last 2 years, pediatricians have worked very hard to conduct high-quality research studies to better understand MIS-C, so we now have more scientific evidence to guide our recommendations.

“In version three of the MIS-C guidance, there are new recommendations on treatment. Previously, it was unclear what medications should be used for first-line treatment in patients with MIS-C. Some children were given intravenous immunoglobulin while others were given IVIg and steroids together. Several new studies show that children with MIS-C who are treated with a combination of IVIg and steroids have better outcomes. Accordingly, the MIS-C guidance now recommends dual therapy with IVIg and steroids in children with MIS-C.”

Diagnostic evaluation

The guidance calls for maintaining a broad differential diagnosis of MIS-C, given that the condition remains rare, and that most children with COVID-19 present with mild symptoms and have excellent outcomes, the authors noted. The range of clinical features associated with MIS-C include fever, mucocutaneous findings, myocardial dysfunction, cardiac conduction abnormalities, shock, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lymphadenopathy.

Some patients also experience neurologic involvement in the form of severe headache, altered mental status, seizures, cranial nerve palsies, meningismus, cerebral edema, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, “it is imperative that a diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C include investigation for other possible causes, as deemed appropriate by the treating provider,” the authors emphasized. Other diagnostic considerations include the prevalence and chronology of COVID-19 in the community, which may change over time.
 

MIS-C and Kawasaki disease phenotypes

Earlier in the pandemic, when MIS-C first emerged, it was compared with Kawasaki disease (KD). “However, a closer examination of the literature shows that only about one-quarter to half of patients with a reported diagnosis of MIS-C meet the full diagnostic criteria for KD,” the authors wrote. Key features that separate MIS-C from KD include the greater incidence of KD among children in Japan and East Asia versus the higher incidence of MIS-C among non-Hispanic Black children. In addition, children with MIS-C have shown a wider age range, more prominent gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms, and more frequent cardiac dysfunction, compared with those with KD.

Cardiac management

Close follow-up with cardiology is essential for children with MIS-C, according to the authors. The recommendations call for repeat echocardiograms for all children with MIS-C at a minimum of 7-14 days, then again at 4-6 weeks after the initial presentation. The authors also recommended additional echocardiograms for children with left ventricular dysfunction and cardiac aortic aneurysms. 

MIS-C treatment

Current treatment recommendations emphasize that patients under investigation for MIS-C with life-threatening manifestations may need immunomodulatory therapy before a full diagnostic evaluation is complete, the authors said. However, patients without life-threatening manifestations should be evaluated before starting immunomodulatory treatment to avoid potentially harmful therapies for pediatric patients who don’t need them.

When MIS-C is refractory to initial immunomodulatory treatment, a second dose of IVIg is not recommended, but intensification therapy is advised with either high-dose (10-30 mg/kg per day) glucocorticoids, anakinra, or infliximab. However, there is little evidence available for selecting a specific agent for intensification therapy.

The task force also advises giving low-dose aspirin (3-5 mg/kg per day, up to 81 mg once daily) to all MIS-C patients without active bleeding or significant bleeding risk until normalization of the platelet count and confirmed normal coronary arteries at least 4 weeks after diagnosis.
 

COVID-19 and hyperinflammation

The task force also noted a distinction between MIS-C and severe COVID-19 in children. Although many children with MIS-C are previously healthy, most children who develop severe COVID-19 during an initial infection have complex conditions or comorbidities such as developmental delay or genetic anomaly, or chronic conditions such as congenital heart disease, type 1 diabetes, or asthma, the authors said. They recommend that “hospitalized children with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or respiratory support should be considered for immunomodulatory therapy in addition to supportive care and antiviral medications.”

The authors acknowledged the limitations and evolving nature of the recommendations, which will continue to change and do not replace clinical judgment for the management of individual patients. In the meantime, the ACR will support the task force in reviewing new evidence and providing revised versions of the current document.

Many questions about MIS-C remain, Dr. Henderson said in an interview. “It can be very hard to diagnose children with MIS-C because many of the symptoms are similar to those seen in other febrile illness of childhood. We need to identify better biomarkers to help us make the diagnosis of MIS-C. In addition, we need studies to provide information about what treatments should be used if children fail to respond to IVIg and steroids. Finally, it appears that vaccination [against SARS-CoV-2] protects against severe forms of MIS-C, and studies are needed to see how vaccination protects children from MIS-C.”

The development of the guidance was supported by the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Henderson disclosed relationships with companies including Sobi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies (less than $10,000) and research support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Updated guidance for health care providers on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) recognizes the evolving nature of the disease and offers strategies for pediatric rheumatologists, who also may be asked to recommend treatment for hyperinflammation in children with acute COVID-19.

Guidance is needed for many reasons, including the variable case definitions for MIS-C, the presence of MIS-C features in other infections and childhood rheumatic diseases, the extrapolation of treatment strategies from other conditions with similar presentations, and the issue of myocardial dysfunction, wrote Lauren A. Henderson, MD, MMSC, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and members of the American College of Rheumatology MIS-C and COVID-19–Related Hyperinflammation Task Force.

However, “modifications to treatment plans, particularly in patients with complex conditions, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific, and therefore must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors said. The updated guidance was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Update needed in wake of Omicron

“We continue to see cases of MIS-C across the United States due to the spike in SARS-CoV-2 infections from the Omicron variant,” and therefore updated guidance is important at this time, Dr. Henderson told this news organization.

“MIS-C remains a serious complication of COVID-19 in children and the ACR wanted to continue to provide pediatricians with up-to-date recommendations for the management of MIS-C,” she said.

“Children began to present with MIS-C in April 2020. At that time, little was known about this entity. Most of the recommendations in the first version of the MIS-C guidance were based on expert opinion,” she explained. However, “over the last 2 years, pediatricians have worked very hard to conduct high-quality research studies to better understand MIS-C, so we now have more scientific evidence to guide our recommendations.

“In version three of the MIS-C guidance, there are new recommendations on treatment. Previously, it was unclear what medications should be used for first-line treatment in patients with MIS-C. Some children were given intravenous immunoglobulin while others were given IVIg and steroids together. Several new studies show that children with MIS-C who are treated with a combination of IVIg and steroids have better outcomes. Accordingly, the MIS-C guidance now recommends dual therapy with IVIg and steroids in children with MIS-C.”

Diagnostic evaluation

The guidance calls for maintaining a broad differential diagnosis of MIS-C, given that the condition remains rare, and that most children with COVID-19 present with mild symptoms and have excellent outcomes, the authors noted. The range of clinical features associated with MIS-C include fever, mucocutaneous findings, myocardial dysfunction, cardiac conduction abnormalities, shock, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lymphadenopathy.

Some patients also experience neurologic involvement in the form of severe headache, altered mental status, seizures, cranial nerve palsies, meningismus, cerebral edema, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, “it is imperative that a diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C include investigation for other possible causes, as deemed appropriate by the treating provider,” the authors emphasized. Other diagnostic considerations include the prevalence and chronology of COVID-19 in the community, which may change over time.
 

MIS-C and Kawasaki disease phenotypes

Earlier in the pandemic, when MIS-C first emerged, it was compared with Kawasaki disease (KD). “However, a closer examination of the literature shows that only about one-quarter to half of patients with a reported diagnosis of MIS-C meet the full diagnostic criteria for KD,” the authors wrote. Key features that separate MIS-C from KD include the greater incidence of KD among children in Japan and East Asia versus the higher incidence of MIS-C among non-Hispanic Black children. In addition, children with MIS-C have shown a wider age range, more prominent gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms, and more frequent cardiac dysfunction, compared with those with KD.

Cardiac management

Close follow-up with cardiology is essential for children with MIS-C, according to the authors. The recommendations call for repeat echocardiograms for all children with MIS-C at a minimum of 7-14 days, then again at 4-6 weeks after the initial presentation. The authors also recommended additional echocardiograms for children with left ventricular dysfunction and cardiac aortic aneurysms. 

MIS-C treatment

Current treatment recommendations emphasize that patients under investigation for MIS-C with life-threatening manifestations may need immunomodulatory therapy before a full diagnostic evaluation is complete, the authors said. However, patients without life-threatening manifestations should be evaluated before starting immunomodulatory treatment to avoid potentially harmful therapies for pediatric patients who don’t need them.

When MIS-C is refractory to initial immunomodulatory treatment, a second dose of IVIg is not recommended, but intensification therapy is advised with either high-dose (10-30 mg/kg per day) glucocorticoids, anakinra, or infliximab. However, there is little evidence available for selecting a specific agent for intensification therapy.

The task force also advises giving low-dose aspirin (3-5 mg/kg per day, up to 81 mg once daily) to all MIS-C patients without active bleeding or significant bleeding risk until normalization of the platelet count and confirmed normal coronary arteries at least 4 weeks after diagnosis.
 

COVID-19 and hyperinflammation

The task force also noted a distinction between MIS-C and severe COVID-19 in children. Although many children with MIS-C are previously healthy, most children who develop severe COVID-19 during an initial infection have complex conditions or comorbidities such as developmental delay or genetic anomaly, or chronic conditions such as congenital heart disease, type 1 diabetes, or asthma, the authors said. They recommend that “hospitalized children with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or respiratory support should be considered for immunomodulatory therapy in addition to supportive care and antiviral medications.”

The authors acknowledged the limitations and evolving nature of the recommendations, which will continue to change and do not replace clinical judgment for the management of individual patients. In the meantime, the ACR will support the task force in reviewing new evidence and providing revised versions of the current document.

Many questions about MIS-C remain, Dr. Henderson said in an interview. “It can be very hard to diagnose children with MIS-C because many of the symptoms are similar to those seen in other febrile illness of childhood. We need to identify better biomarkers to help us make the diagnosis of MIS-C. In addition, we need studies to provide information about what treatments should be used if children fail to respond to IVIg and steroids. Finally, it appears that vaccination [against SARS-CoV-2] protects against severe forms of MIS-C, and studies are needed to see how vaccination protects children from MIS-C.”

The development of the guidance was supported by the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Henderson disclosed relationships with companies including Sobi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies (less than $10,000) and research support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Updated guidance for health care providers on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) recognizes the evolving nature of the disease and offers strategies for pediatric rheumatologists, who also may be asked to recommend treatment for hyperinflammation in children with acute COVID-19.

Guidance is needed for many reasons, including the variable case definitions for MIS-C, the presence of MIS-C features in other infections and childhood rheumatic diseases, the extrapolation of treatment strategies from other conditions with similar presentations, and the issue of myocardial dysfunction, wrote Lauren A. Henderson, MD, MMSC, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and members of the American College of Rheumatology MIS-C and COVID-19–Related Hyperinflammation Task Force.

However, “modifications to treatment plans, particularly in patients with complex conditions, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific, and therefore must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors said. The updated guidance was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Update needed in wake of Omicron

“We continue to see cases of MIS-C across the United States due to the spike in SARS-CoV-2 infections from the Omicron variant,” and therefore updated guidance is important at this time, Dr. Henderson told this news organization.

“MIS-C remains a serious complication of COVID-19 in children and the ACR wanted to continue to provide pediatricians with up-to-date recommendations for the management of MIS-C,” she said.

“Children began to present with MIS-C in April 2020. At that time, little was known about this entity. Most of the recommendations in the first version of the MIS-C guidance were based on expert opinion,” she explained. However, “over the last 2 years, pediatricians have worked very hard to conduct high-quality research studies to better understand MIS-C, so we now have more scientific evidence to guide our recommendations.

“In version three of the MIS-C guidance, there are new recommendations on treatment. Previously, it was unclear what medications should be used for first-line treatment in patients with MIS-C. Some children were given intravenous immunoglobulin while others were given IVIg and steroids together. Several new studies show that children with MIS-C who are treated with a combination of IVIg and steroids have better outcomes. Accordingly, the MIS-C guidance now recommends dual therapy with IVIg and steroids in children with MIS-C.”

Diagnostic evaluation

The guidance calls for maintaining a broad differential diagnosis of MIS-C, given that the condition remains rare, and that most children with COVID-19 present with mild symptoms and have excellent outcomes, the authors noted. The range of clinical features associated with MIS-C include fever, mucocutaneous findings, myocardial dysfunction, cardiac conduction abnormalities, shock, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lymphadenopathy.

Some patients also experience neurologic involvement in the form of severe headache, altered mental status, seizures, cranial nerve palsies, meningismus, cerebral edema, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, “it is imperative that a diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C include investigation for other possible causes, as deemed appropriate by the treating provider,” the authors emphasized. Other diagnostic considerations include the prevalence and chronology of COVID-19 in the community, which may change over time.
 

MIS-C and Kawasaki disease phenotypes

Earlier in the pandemic, when MIS-C first emerged, it was compared with Kawasaki disease (KD). “However, a closer examination of the literature shows that only about one-quarter to half of patients with a reported diagnosis of MIS-C meet the full diagnostic criteria for KD,” the authors wrote. Key features that separate MIS-C from KD include the greater incidence of KD among children in Japan and East Asia versus the higher incidence of MIS-C among non-Hispanic Black children. In addition, children with MIS-C have shown a wider age range, more prominent gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms, and more frequent cardiac dysfunction, compared with those with KD.

Cardiac management

Close follow-up with cardiology is essential for children with MIS-C, according to the authors. The recommendations call for repeat echocardiograms for all children with MIS-C at a minimum of 7-14 days, then again at 4-6 weeks after the initial presentation. The authors also recommended additional echocardiograms for children with left ventricular dysfunction and cardiac aortic aneurysms. 

MIS-C treatment

Current treatment recommendations emphasize that patients under investigation for MIS-C with life-threatening manifestations may need immunomodulatory therapy before a full diagnostic evaluation is complete, the authors said. However, patients without life-threatening manifestations should be evaluated before starting immunomodulatory treatment to avoid potentially harmful therapies for pediatric patients who don’t need them.

When MIS-C is refractory to initial immunomodulatory treatment, a second dose of IVIg is not recommended, but intensification therapy is advised with either high-dose (10-30 mg/kg per day) glucocorticoids, anakinra, or infliximab. However, there is little evidence available for selecting a specific agent for intensification therapy.

The task force also advises giving low-dose aspirin (3-5 mg/kg per day, up to 81 mg once daily) to all MIS-C patients without active bleeding or significant bleeding risk until normalization of the platelet count and confirmed normal coronary arteries at least 4 weeks after diagnosis.
 

COVID-19 and hyperinflammation

The task force also noted a distinction between MIS-C and severe COVID-19 in children. Although many children with MIS-C are previously healthy, most children who develop severe COVID-19 during an initial infection have complex conditions or comorbidities such as developmental delay or genetic anomaly, or chronic conditions such as congenital heart disease, type 1 diabetes, or asthma, the authors said. They recommend that “hospitalized children with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or respiratory support should be considered for immunomodulatory therapy in addition to supportive care and antiviral medications.”

The authors acknowledged the limitations and evolving nature of the recommendations, which will continue to change and do not replace clinical judgment for the management of individual patients. In the meantime, the ACR will support the task force in reviewing new evidence and providing revised versions of the current document.

Many questions about MIS-C remain, Dr. Henderson said in an interview. “It can be very hard to diagnose children with MIS-C because many of the symptoms are similar to those seen in other febrile illness of childhood. We need to identify better biomarkers to help us make the diagnosis of MIS-C. In addition, we need studies to provide information about what treatments should be used if children fail to respond to IVIg and steroids. Finally, it appears that vaccination [against SARS-CoV-2] protects against severe forms of MIS-C, and studies are needed to see how vaccination protects children from MIS-C.”

The development of the guidance was supported by the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Henderson disclosed relationships with companies including Sobi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies (less than $10,000) and research support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

The Omicron subvariant, BA.2, is not only more transmissible than the original Omicron strain, BA.1, but may cause more severe disease, a lab study from Japan says.

“Our multiscale investigations suggest that the risk of BA.2 for global health is potentially higher than that of BA.1,” the researchers said in the study published on the preprint server bioRxiv. The study has not been peer-reviewed.

The researchers infected hamsters with BA.1 and BA.2. The hamsters infected with BA.2 got sicker, with more lung damage and loss of body weight. Results were similar when mice were infected with BA.1 and BA.2.

“Infection experiments using hamsters show that BA.2 is more pathogenic than BA.1,” the study said.

BA.1 and BA.2 both appear to evade immunity created by COVID-19 vaccines, the study said. But a booster shot makes illness after infection 74% less likely, CNN said.

What’s more, therapeutic monoclonal antibodies used to treat people infected with COVID didn’t have much effect on BA.2. 

BA.2 was “almost completely resistant” to casirivimab and imdevimab and was 35 times more resistant to sotrovimab, compared to the original B.1.1 virus, the researchers wrote. 

“In summary, our data suggest the possibility that BA.2 would be the most concerned variant to global health,” the researchers wrote. “Currently, both BA.2 and BA.1 are recognised together as Omicron and these are almost undistinguishable. Based on our findings, we propose that BA.2 should be recognised as a unique variant of concern, and this SARS-CoV-2 variant should be monitored in depth.”

If the World Health Organization recognized BA.2 as a “unique variant of concern,” it would be given its own Greek letter.

But some scientists noted that findings in the lab don’t always reflect what’s happening in the real world of people.

“I think it’s always hard to translate differences in animal and cell culture models to what’s going on with regards to human disease,” Jeremy Kamil, PhD, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, told Newsweek. “That said, the differences do look real.”

“It might be, from a human’s perspective, a worse virus than BA.1 and might be able to transmit better and cause worse disease,” Daniel Rhoads, MD, section head of microbiology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, told CNN. He reviewed the Japanese study but was not involved in it.

Another scientist who reviewed the study but was not involved in the research noted that human immune systems are evolving along with the COVID variants. 

“One of the caveats that we have to think about, as we get new variants that might seem more dangerous, is the fact that there’s two sides to the story,” Deborah Fuller, PhD, a virologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine, told CNN. “Our immune system is evolving as well. And so that’s pushing back on things.”

Scientists have already established that BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1. The Omicron subvariant has been detected in 74 countries and 47 U.S. states, according to CNN. About 4% of Americans with COVID were infected with BA.2, the outlet reported, citing the CDC, but it’s now the dominant strain in other nations.

It’s not clear yet if BA.2 causes more severe illness in people. While BA.2 spreads faster than BA.1, there’s no evidence the subvariant makes people any sicker, an official with the World Health Organization said, according to CNBC.

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

The Omicron subvariant, BA.2, is not only more transmissible than the original Omicron strain, BA.1, but may cause more severe disease, a lab study from Japan says.

“Our multiscale investigations suggest that the risk of BA.2 for global health is potentially higher than that of BA.1,” the researchers said in the study published on the preprint server bioRxiv. The study has not been peer-reviewed.

The researchers infected hamsters with BA.1 and BA.2. The hamsters infected with BA.2 got sicker, with more lung damage and loss of body weight. Results were similar when mice were infected with BA.1 and BA.2.

“Infection experiments using hamsters show that BA.2 is more pathogenic than BA.1,” the study said.

BA.1 and BA.2 both appear to evade immunity created by COVID-19 vaccines, the study said. But a booster shot makes illness after infection 74% less likely, CNN said.

What’s more, therapeutic monoclonal antibodies used to treat people infected with COVID didn’t have much effect on BA.2. 

BA.2 was “almost completely resistant” to casirivimab and imdevimab and was 35 times more resistant to sotrovimab, compared to the original B.1.1 virus, the researchers wrote. 

“In summary, our data suggest the possibility that BA.2 would be the most concerned variant to global health,” the researchers wrote. “Currently, both BA.2 and BA.1 are recognised together as Omicron and these are almost undistinguishable. Based on our findings, we propose that BA.2 should be recognised as a unique variant of concern, and this SARS-CoV-2 variant should be monitored in depth.”

If the World Health Organization recognized BA.2 as a “unique variant of concern,” it would be given its own Greek letter.

But some scientists noted that findings in the lab don’t always reflect what’s happening in the real world of people.

“I think it’s always hard to translate differences in animal and cell culture models to what’s going on with regards to human disease,” Jeremy Kamil, PhD, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, told Newsweek. “That said, the differences do look real.”

“It might be, from a human’s perspective, a worse virus than BA.1 and might be able to transmit better and cause worse disease,” Daniel Rhoads, MD, section head of microbiology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, told CNN. He reviewed the Japanese study but was not involved in it.

Another scientist who reviewed the study but was not involved in the research noted that human immune systems are evolving along with the COVID variants. 

“One of the caveats that we have to think about, as we get new variants that might seem more dangerous, is the fact that there’s two sides to the story,” Deborah Fuller, PhD, a virologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine, told CNN. “Our immune system is evolving as well. And so that’s pushing back on things.”

Scientists have already established that BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1. The Omicron subvariant has been detected in 74 countries and 47 U.S. states, according to CNN. About 4% of Americans with COVID were infected with BA.2, the outlet reported, citing the CDC, but it’s now the dominant strain in other nations.

It’s not clear yet if BA.2 causes more severe illness in people. While BA.2 spreads faster than BA.1, there’s no evidence the subvariant makes people any sicker, an official with the World Health Organization said, according to CNBC.

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

The Omicron subvariant, BA.2, is not only more transmissible than the original Omicron strain, BA.1, but may cause more severe disease, a lab study from Japan says.

“Our multiscale investigations suggest that the risk of BA.2 for global health is potentially higher than that of BA.1,” the researchers said in the study published on the preprint server bioRxiv. The study has not been peer-reviewed.

The researchers infected hamsters with BA.1 and BA.2. The hamsters infected with BA.2 got sicker, with more lung damage and loss of body weight. Results were similar when mice were infected with BA.1 and BA.2.

“Infection experiments using hamsters show that BA.2 is more pathogenic than BA.1,” the study said.

BA.1 and BA.2 both appear to evade immunity created by COVID-19 vaccines, the study said. But a booster shot makes illness after infection 74% less likely, CNN said.

What’s more, therapeutic monoclonal antibodies used to treat people infected with COVID didn’t have much effect on BA.2. 

BA.2 was “almost completely resistant” to casirivimab and imdevimab and was 35 times more resistant to sotrovimab, compared to the original B.1.1 virus, the researchers wrote. 

“In summary, our data suggest the possibility that BA.2 would be the most concerned variant to global health,” the researchers wrote. “Currently, both BA.2 and BA.1 are recognised together as Omicron and these are almost undistinguishable. Based on our findings, we propose that BA.2 should be recognised as a unique variant of concern, and this SARS-CoV-2 variant should be monitored in depth.”

If the World Health Organization recognized BA.2 as a “unique variant of concern,” it would be given its own Greek letter.

But some scientists noted that findings in the lab don’t always reflect what’s happening in the real world of people.

“I think it’s always hard to translate differences in animal and cell culture models to what’s going on with regards to human disease,” Jeremy Kamil, PhD, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, told Newsweek. “That said, the differences do look real.”

“It might be, from a human’s perspective, a worse virus than BA.1 and might be able to transmit better and cause worse disease,” Daniel Rhoads, MD, section head of microbiology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, told CNN. He reviewed the Japanese study but was not involved in it.

Another scientist who reviewed the study but was not involved in the research noted that human immune systems are evolving along with the COVID variants. 

“One of the caveats that we have to think about, as we get new variants that might seem more dangerous, is the fact that there’s two sides to the story,” Deborah Fuller, PhD, a virologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine, told CNN. “Our immune system is evolving as well. And so that’s pushing back on things.”

Scientists have already established that BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1. The Omicron subvariant has been detected in 74 countries and 47 U.S. states, according to CNN. About 4% of Americans with COVID were infected with BA.2, the outlet reported, citing the CDC, but it’s now the dominant strain in other nations.

It’s not clear yet if BA.2 causes more severe illness in people. While BA.2 spreads faster than BA.1, there’s no evidence the subvariant makes people any sicker, an official with the World Health Organization said, according to CNBC.

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

Spironolactone was not associated with any meaningful increase in the risk of breast cancer or other solid organ cancers in a systematic review and meta-analysis covering seven observational studies and a total population of over 4.5 million people.

The data, published in JAMA Dermatology, are “reassuring,” the authors reported, considering that the spironolactone label carries a Food and Drug Administration warning regarding possible tumorigenicity, which is based on animal studies of doses up to 150-fold greater than doses used for humans. The drug’s antiandrogenic properties have driven its off-label use as a treatment for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.

Spironolactone, a synthetic 17-lactone steroid, is approved for the treatment of heart failure, edema and ascites, hypertension, and primary hyperaldosteronism. Off label, it is also frequently used in gender-affirming care and is included in Endocrine Society guidelines as part of hormonal regimens for transgender women, the authors noted.

The seven eligible studies looked at the occurrence of cancer in men and women who had any exposure to the drug, regardless of the primary indication. Sample sizes ranged from 18,035 to 2.3 million, and the mean age across all studies was 62.6-72 years.

The researchers synthesized the studies, mostly of European individuals, using random effects meta-analysis and found no statistically significant association between spironolactone use and risk of breast cancer (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.22). Three of the seven studies investigated breast cancer.

There was also no significant association between spironolactone use and risk of ovarian cancer (two studies), bladder cancer (three studies), kidney cancer (two studies), gastric cancer (two studies), or esophageal cancer (two studies).

For prostate cancer, investigated in four studies, use of the drug was associated with decreased risk (RR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.68-0.90).

Kanthi Bommareddy, MD, of the University of Miami and coauthors concluded that all studies were at low risk of bias after appraising each one using a scale that looks at selection bias, confounding bias, and detection and outcome bias.

In dermatology, the results should “help us to take a collective sigh of relief,” said Julie C. Harper, MD, of the Dermatology and Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala., who was asked to comment on the study. The drug has been “safe and effective in our clinics and it is affordable and accessible to our patients,” she said, but with the FDA’s warning and the drug’s antiandrogen capacity, “there has been concern that we might be putting our patients at increased risk of breast cancer [in particular].”

The pooling of seven large studies together and the finding of no substantive increased risk of cancer “gives us evidence and comfort that spironolactone does not increase the risk of cancer in our dermatology patients,” said Dr. Harper, a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society.

“With every passing year,” she noted, “dermatologists are prescribing more and more spironolactone for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.”

Four of the seven studies stratified analyses by sex, and in those without stratification by sex, women accounted for 17.2%-54.4% of the samples.

The studies had long follow-up periods of 5-20 years, but certainty of the evidence was low and since many of the studies included mostly older individuals, “they may not generalize to younger populations, such as those treated with spironolactone for acne,” the investigators wrote.

The authors also noted they were unable to look for dose-dependent associations between spironolactone and cancer risk, and that confidence intervals for rarer cancers like ovarian cancer were wide. “We cannot entirely exclude the potential for a meaningful increase in cancer risk,” and future studies are needed, in populations that include younger patients and those with acne or hirsutism.

Dr. Bommareddy reported no disclosures. Other coauthors reported grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work, and personal fees as a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Scholar in Cancer Research. There was no funding reported for the study. Dr. Harper said she had no disclosures.

Spironolactone was not associated with any meaningful increase in the risk of breast cancer or other solid organ cancers in a systematic review and meta-analysis covering seven observational studies and a total population of over 4.5 million people.

The data, published in JAMA Dermatology, are “reassuring,” the authors reported, considering that the spironolactone label carries a Food and Drug Administration warning regarding possible tumorigenicity, which is based on animal studies of doses up to 150-fold greater than doses used for humans. The drug’s antiandrogenic properties have driven its off-label use as a treatment for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.

Spironolactone, a synthetic 17-lactone steroid, is approved for the treatment of heart failure, edema and ascites, hypertension, and primary hyperaldosteronism. Off label, it is also frequently used in gender-affirming care and is included in Endocrine Society guidelines as part of hormonal regimens for transgender women, the authors noted.

The seven eligible studies looked at the occurrence of cancer in men and women who had any exposure to the drug, regardless of the primary indication. Sample sizes ranged from 18,035 to 2.3 million, and the mean age across all studies was 62.6-72 years.

The researchers synthesized the studies, mostly of European individuals, using random effects meta-analysis and found no statistically significant association between spironolactone use and risk of breast cancer (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.22). Three of the seven studies investigated breast cancer.

There was also no significant association between spironolactone use and risk of ovarian cancer (two studies), bladder cancer (three studies), kidney cancer (two studies), gastric cancer (two studies), or esophageal cancer (two studies).

For prostate cancer, investigated in four studies, use of the drug was associated with decreased risk (RR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.68-0.90).

Kanthi Bommareddy, MD, of the University of Miami and coauthors concluded that all studies were at low risk of bias after appraising each one using a scale that looks at selection bias, confounding bias, and detection and outcome bias.

In dermatology, the results should “help us to take a collective sigh of relief,” said Julie C. Harper, MD, of the Dermatology and Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala., who was asked to comment on the study. The drug has been “safe and effective in our clinics and it is affordable and accessible to our patients,” she said, but with the FDA’s warning and the drug’s antiandrogen capacity, “there has been concern that we might be putting our patients at increased risk of breast cancer [in particular].”

The pooling of seven large studies together and the finding of no substantive increased risk of cancer “gives us evidence and comfort that spironolactone does not increase the risk of cancer in our dermatology patients,” said Dr. Harper, a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society.

“With every passing year,” she noted, “dermatologists are prescribing more and more spironolactone for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.”

Four of the seven studies stratified analyses by sex, and in those without stratification by sex, women accounted for 17.2%-54.4% of the samples.

The studies had long follow-up periods of 5-20 years, but certainty of the evidence was low and since many of the studies included mostly older individuals, “they may not generalize to younger populations, such as those treated with spironolactone for acne,” the investigators wrote.

The authors also noted they were unable to look for dose-dependent associations between spironolactone and cancer risk, and that confidence intervals for rarer cancers like ovarian cancer were wide. “We cannot entirely exclude the potential for a meaningful increase in cancer risk,” and future studies are needed, in populations that include younger patients and those with acne or hirsutism.

Dr. Bommareddy reported no disclosures. Other coauthors reported grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work, and personal fees as a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Scholar in Cancer Research. There was no funding reported for the study. Dr. Harper said she had no disclosures.

Spironolactone was not associated with any meaningful increase in the risk of breast cancer or other solid organ cancers in a systematic review and meta-analysis covering seven observational studies and a total population of over 4.5 million people.

The data, published in JAMA Dermatology, are “reassuring,” the authors reported, considering that the spironolactone label carries a Food and Drug Administration warning regarding possible tumorigenicity, which is based on animal studies of doses up to 150-fold greater than doses used for humans. The drug’s antiandrogenic properties have driven its off-label use as a treatment for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.

Spironolactone, a synthetic 17-lactone steroid, is approved for the treatment of heart failure, edema and ascites, hypertension, and primary hyperaldosteronism. Off label, it is also frequently used in gender-affirming care and is included in Endocrine Society guidelines as part of hormonal regimens for transgender women, the authors noted.

The seven eligible studies looked at the occurrence of cancer in men and women who had any exposure to the drug, regardless of the primary indication. Sample sizes ranged from 18,035 to 2.3 million, and the mean age across all studies was 62.6-72 years.

The researchers synthesized the studies, mostly of European individuals, using random effects meta-analysis and found no statistically significant association between spironolactone use and risk of breast cancer (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.22). Three of the seven studies investigated breast cancer.

There was also no significant association between spironolactone use and risk of ovarian cancer (two studies), bladder cancer (three studies), kidney cancer (two studies), gastric cancer (two studies), or esophageal cancer (two studies).

For prostate cancer, investigated in four studies, use of the drug was associated with decreased risk (RR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.68-0.90).

Kanthi Bommareddy, MD, of the University of Miami and coauthors concluded that all studies were at low risk of bias after appraising each one using a scale that looks at selection bias, confounding bias, and detection and outcome bias.

In dermatology, the results should “help us to take a collective sigh of relief,” said Julie C. Harper, MD, of the Dermatology and Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala., who was asked to comment on the study. The drug has been “safe and effective in our clinics and it is affordable and accessible to our patients,” she said, but with the FDA’s warning and the drug’s antiandrogen capacity, “there has been concern that we might be putting our patients at increased risk of breast cancer [in particular].”

The pooling of seven large studies together and the finding of no substantive increased risk of cancer “gives us evidence and comfort that spironolactone does not increase the risk of cancer in our dermatology patients,” said Dr. Harper, a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society.

“With every passing year,” she noted, “dermatologists are prescribing more and more spironolactone for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.”

Four of the seven studies stratified analyses by sex, and in those without stratification by sex, women accounted for 17.2%-54.4% of the samples.

The studies had long follow-up periods of 5-20 years, but certainty of the evidence was low and since many of the studies included mostly older individuals, “they may not generalize to younger populations, such as those treated with spironolactone for acne,” the investigators wrote.

The authors also noted they were unable to look for dose-dependent associations between spironolactone and cancer risk, and that confidence intervals for rarer cancers like ovarian cancer were wide. “We cannot entirely exclude the potential for a meaningful increase in cancer risk,” and future studies are needed, in populations that include younger patients and those with acne or hirsutism.

Dr. Bommareddy reported no disclosures. Other coauthors reported grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work, and personal fees as a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Scholar in Cancer Research. There was no funding reported for the study. Dr. Harper said she had no disclosures.

Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.

“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.

Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.

Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
 

Secondary outcomes

Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.

In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.

Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).

The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
 

No difference by vaccine status

The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”

Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).

Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.

The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”

Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.

Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.

In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.

Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.

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

Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.

“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.

Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.

Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
 

Secondary outcomes

Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.

In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.

Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).

The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
 

No difference by vaccine status

The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”

Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).

Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.

The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”

Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.

Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.

In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.

Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.

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

Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.

“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.

Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.

Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
 

Secondary outcomes

Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.

In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.

Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).

The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
 

No difference by vaccine status

The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”

Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).

Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.

The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”

Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.

Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.

In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.

Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.

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

Researchers point the finger squarely at starting salaries for physicians as the reason women earn less than their male peers in academic medicine, according to a new study. Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.

Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.

Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.

Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.

The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).

Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
 

Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play

The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.

The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.

Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.

“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”

Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”

Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”

In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.

Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.

The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.

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

Researchers point the finger squarely at starting salaries for physicians as the reason women earn less than their male peers in academic medicine, according to a new study. Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.

Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.

Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.

Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.

The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).

Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
 

Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play

The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.

The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.

Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.

“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”

Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”

Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”

In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.

Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.

The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.

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

Researchers point the finger squarely at starting salaries for physicians as the reason women earn less than their male peers in academic medicine, according to a new study. Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.

Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.

Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.

Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.

The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).

Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
 

Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play

The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.

The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.

Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.

“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”

Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”

Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”

In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.

Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.

The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.

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

New prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin increased in 2020, driven particularly by rates in counties with the highest proportion of Republican votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been influenced by political affiliation,” wrote Michael L. Barnett, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.
 

The researchers used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to analyze commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims from January 2019 through December 2020 for more than 18.5 million adults living in counties with at least 50 enrollees.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment on March 28, 2020, but the agency revoked the EUA 3 months later on June 15. Ivermectin never received an EUA for COVID treatment, but an in vitro study published April 3, 2020 claimed it had an antiviral effect.

The National Institutes of Health recommended against using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment on Aug. 1, 2020, but a few months later, on Nov. 13, a flawed clinical trial – later retracted – claimed ivermectin was 90% effective in treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy, a Senate committee meeting on Dec. 8, 2020, included testimony from a physician who promoted its use.

Mario Olaya/Pixabay

In comparing ivermectin and HCQ prescription rates with counties’ political composition, the researchers adjusted their findings to account for differences in the counties’ racial composition and COVID-19 incidence as well as enrollees’ age, sex, insurance type, income, comorbidity burden, and home in a rural or urban area.

The results showed an average of 20 new HCQ prescriptions per 100,000 enrollees in 2019, but 2020 saw a sharp increase and drop in new HCQ prescriptions in March-April 2020, independent of counties’ breakdown of political affiliation.

“However, after June 2020, coinciding with the revocation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, prescribing volume was significantly higher in the highest vs. lowest Republican vote share counties,” the authors report. The gradual increase from June through December 2020 averaged to 42 new prescriptions per 100,000, a 146% increase over 2019 rates that was driven largely by the 25% of counties with the highest proportion of Republican voters.

Similarly, rates of new ivermectin prescriptions in December 2020 were more than nine times higher in counties with the highest Republican vote share, compared with new prescriptions throughout 2019. The researchers found no differences in new prescriptions for methotrexate or albendazole in 2020 based on counties’ proportion of Republican votes.

Since the study is an ecological, observational one, it cannot show causation or shed light on what role patients, physicians, or other factors might have played in prescribing patterns. Nevertheless, the authors noted the potentially negative implications of their findings.

“Because political affiliation should not be a factor in clinical treatment decisions, our findings raise concerns for public trust in a nonpartisan health care system,” the authors write.

Coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, reported personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, and coauthor Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, reported personal fees from Bioverativ, Merck, Janssen, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Otsuka, Vertex, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Precision Health Economics (now PRECISIONheor), Analysis Group, and Doubleday and hosting the podcast Freakonomics, M.D. The other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. No external funding source was noted.

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

New prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin increased in 2020, driven particularly by rates in counties with the highest proportion of Republican votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been influenced by political affiliation,” wrote Michael L. Barnett, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.
 

The researchers used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to analyze commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims from January 2019 through December 2020 for more than 18.5 million adults living in counties with at least 50 enrollees.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment on March 28, 2020, but the agency revoked the EUA 3 months later on June 15. Ivermectin never received an EUA for COVID treatment, but an in vitro study published April 3, 2020 claimed it had an antiviral effect.

The National Institutes of Health recommended against using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment on Aug. 1, 2020, but a few months later, on Nov. 13, a flawed clinical trial – later retracted – claimed ivermectin was 90% effective in treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy, a Senate committee meeting on Dec. 8, 2020, included testimony from a physician who promoted its use.

Mario Olaya/Pixabay

In comparing ivermectin and HCQ prescription rates with counties’ political composition, the researchers adjusted their findings to account for differences in the counties’ racial composition and COVID-19 incidence as well as enrollees’ age, sex, insurance type, income, comorbidity burden, and home in a rural or urban area.

The results showed an average of 20 new HCQ prescriptions per 100,000 enrollees in 2019, but 2020 saw a sharp increase and drop in new HCQ prescriptions in March-April 2020, independent of counties’ breakdown of political affiliation.

“However, after June 2020, coinciding with the revocation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, prescribing volume was significantly higher in the highest vs. lowest Republican vote share counties,” the authors report. The gradual increase from June through December 2020 averaged to 42 new prescriptions per 100,000, a 146% increase over 2019 rates that was driven largely by the 25% of counties with the highest proportion of Republican voters.

Similarly, rates of new ivermectin prescriptions in December 2020 were more than nine times higher in counties with the highest Republican vote share, compared with new prescriptions throughout 2019. The researchers found no differences in new prescriptions for methotrexate or albendazole in 2020 based on counties’ proportion of Republican votes.

Since the study is an ecological, observational one, it cannot show causation or shed light on what role patients, physicians, or other factors might have played in prescribing patterns. Nevertheless, the authors noted the potentially negative implications of their findings.

“Because political affiliation should not be a factor in clinical treatment decisions, our findings raise concerns for public trust in a nonpartisan health care system,” the authors write.

Coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, reported personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, and coauthor Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, reported personal fees from Bioverativ, Merck, Janssen, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Otsuka, Vertex, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Precision Health Economics (now PRECISIONheor), Analysis Group, and Doubleday and hosting the podcast Freakonomics, M.D. The other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. No external funding source was noted.

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

New prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin increased in 2020, driven particularly by rates in counties with the highest proportion of Republican votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been influenced by political affiliation,” wrote Michael L. Barnett, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.
 

The researchers used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to analyze commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims from January 2019 through December 2020 for more than 18.5 million adults living in counties with at least 50 enrollees.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment on March 28, 2020, but the agency revoked the EUA 3 months later on June 15. Ivermectin never received an EUA for COVID treatment, but an in vitro study published April 3, 2020 claimed it had an antiviral effect.

The National Institutes of Health recommended against using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment on Aug. 1, 2020, but a few months later, on Nov. 13, a flawed clinical trial – later retracted – claimed ivermectin was 90% effective in treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy, a Senate committee meeting on Dec. 8, 2020, included testimony from a physician who promoted its use.

Mario Olaya/Pixabay

In comparing ivermectin and HCQ prescription rates with counties’ political composition, the researchers adjusted their findings to account for differences in the counties’ racial composition and COVID-19 incidence as well as enrollees’ age, sex, insurance type, income, comorbidity burden, and home in a rural or urban area.

The results showed an average of 20 new HCQ prescriptions per 100,000 enrollees in 2019, but 2020 saw a sharp increase and drop in new HCQ prescriptions in March-April 2020, independent of counties’ breakdown of political affiliation.

“However, after June 2020, coinciding with the revocation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, prescribing volume was significantly higher in the highest vs. lowest Republican vote share counties,” the authors report. The gradual increase from June through December 2020 averaged to 42 new prescriptions per 100,000, a 146% increase over 2019 rates that was driven largely by the 25% of counties with the highest proportion of Republican voters.

Similarly, rates of new ivermectin prescriptions in December 2020 were more than nine times higher in counties with the highest Republican vote share, compared with new prescriptions throughout 2019. The researchers found no differences in new prescriptions for methotrexate or albendazole in 2020 based on counties’ proportion of Republican votes.

Since the study is an ecological, observational one, it cannot show causation or shed light on what role patients, physicians, or other factors might have played in prescribing patterns. Nevertheless, the authors noted the potentially negative implications of their findings.

“Because political affiliation should not be a factor in clinical treatment decisions, our findings raise concerns for public trust in a nonpartisan health care system,” the authors write.

Coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, reported personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, and coauthor Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, reported personal fees from Bioverativ, Merck, Janssen, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Otsuka, Vertex, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Precision Health Economics (now PRECISIONheor), Analysis Group, and Doubleday and hosting the podcast Freakonomics, M.D. The other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. No external funding source was noted.

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

The thrombolytic tenecteplase may have a role in reestablishing blood flow in patients with large-vessel acute ischemic stroke up to 24 hours after stroke onset selected by perfusion imaging, a new trial from China suggests.

The phase 2a CHABLIS trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Xin Cheng, MD, associate professor of neurology at the Huashan Hospital of Fudan University and the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Shanghai, China.

“These results are the first to be reported with tenecteplase in the extended time window and suggest that it may be feasible to extend the time window of intravenous thrombolysis to 24 hours after last known well through perfusion imaging selection,” she concluded at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Cheng noted that alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator) is the standard of care for thrombolysis in stroke, with a time window of up to 4.5 hours after stroke onset. However, the recent EXTEND trial suggested benefit of alteplase in patients who were between 4.5 and 9 hours of stroke onset and who had hypoperfused but salvageable regions of brain detected on automated perfusion imaging.

Tenecteplase is a genetically modified variant of alteplase. It has received regulatory approval for treatment of myocardial infarction. Dr. Cheng said there is increasing interest in tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase, mainly because of its practical advantages (single bolus, rather than 1-hour infusion) and its having a number of hypothetical advantages over alteplase, including greater fibrin specificity and lesser likelihood of fibrinogen depletion.

Until now, studies of tenecteplase in stroke have included patients in the traditional time window, which has been no longer than 6 hours from stroke onset, she added.

For the current CHABLIS trial, the Chinese researchers investigated the use of tenecteplase administered to ischemic stroke patients at 4.5-24 hours from time of their being last seen well who were selected by significant penumbral mismatch on perfusion imaging. The trial included 86 patients who had an anterior large-vessel occlusion or severe stenosis identified on head and neck CT angiography and penumbral mismatch on CT perfusion imaging. They were randomized to one of two doses of tenecteplase, 0.25 mg/kg or 0.32 mg/kg.

The primary outcome was the achievement of reperfusion without symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24-48 hours after thrombolysis. This occurred in 32% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 23.3% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.

Recanalization at 4-6 hours occurred in 44% of both groups.

In terms of neurologic outcomes, an excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, was achieved in 28% of the 0.25-mg/kg group and 49% of the 0.32-mg/kg group. A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 46% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 60% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.

Limitations of the study included a small sample size and the lack of a control group. In addition, the study included only Chinese patients, who are known to have different stroke etiologies in comparison with White patients, Dr. Cheng noted.

In the subset of patients who received tenecteplase and who underwent endovascular therapy, fewer patients (8.8%) reached the primary outcome measure of reperfusion without symptomatic ICH, compared with those who received only tenecteplase (40.4%).

“In our study, tenecteplase seems to be quite effective and safe in patients who do not need endovascular therapy,” Dr. Cheng said. “More research is needed to understand why tenecteplase was less effective in restoring blood flow and more likely to result in symptomatic brain bleeding among those who had endovascular therapy.”

The researchers have now started a phase 2b trial, CHABLIS-2. This is a randomized, multicenter, controlled, open-label study of the 0.25-mg/kg dose of tenecteplase.

Commenting on the current study at an ISC press conference, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “This is very important study looking at the question of using thrombolysis out to 24 hours, and it does suggest a benefit, but we don’t know the best dose yet.”

He noted that his hospital system has already switched from alteplase to tenecteplase in the treatment of stroke, and several other centers are also making this switch. “In our center, we use the 0.25-mg/kg dose, but we don’t routinely treat patients beyond the 4.5-hour time window,” Dr. Jovin reported.

“The signals are there for a longer treatment window,” he said. “But this study was not aiming to directly answer whether tenecteplase is better than no treatment or alteplase, or its use with endovascular therapy.”

Noting that there are similar randomized trials ongoing in the United States and other countries exploring the same doses of tenecteplase, he said he thought the “dose and approach is applicable to U.S. practice.”

The CHABLIS study was funded by national key research and development program of China from the Science and Technology Ministry. Tenecteplase was provided by Guangzhou Recomgen Biotech.

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

The thrombolytic tenecteplase may have a role in reestablishing blood flow in patients with large-vessel acute ischemic stroke up to 24 hours after stroke onset selected by perfusion imaging, a new trial from China suggests.

The phase 2a CHABLIS trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Xin Cheng, MD, associate professor of neurology at the Huashan Hospital of Fudan University and the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Shanghai, China.

“These results are the first to be reported with tenecteplase in the extended time window and suggest that it may be feasible to extend the time window of intravenous thrombolysis to 24 hours after last known well through perfusion imaging selection,” she concluded at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Cheng noted that alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator) is the standard of care for thrombolysis in stroke, with a time window of up to 4.5 hours after stroke onset. However, the recent EXTEND trial suggested benefit of alteplase in patients who were between 4.5 and 9 hours of stroke onset and who had hypoperfused but salvageable regions of brain detected on automated perfusion imaging.

Tenecteplase is a genetically modified variant of alteplase. It has received regulatory approval for treatment of myocardial infarction. Dr. Cheng said there is increasing interest in tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase, mainly because of its practical advantages (single bolus, rather than 1-hour infusion) and its having a number of hypothetical advantages over alteplase, including greater fibrin specificity and lesser likelihood of fibrinogen depletion.

Until now, studies of tenecteplase in stroke have included patients in the traditional time window, which has been no longer than 6 hours from stroke onset, she added.

For the current CHABLIS trial, the Chinese researchers investigated the use of tenecteplase administered to ischemic stroke patients at 4.5-24 hours from time of their being last seen well who were selected by significant penumbral mismatch on perfusion imaging. The trial included 86 patients who had an anterior large-vessel occlusion or severe stenosis identified on head and neck CT angiography and penumbral mismatch on CT perfusion imaging. They were randomized to one of two doses of tenecteplase, 0.25 mg/kg or 0.32 mg/kg.

The primary outcome was the achievement of reperfusion without symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24-48 hours after thrombolysis. This occurred in 32% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 23.3% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.

Recanalization at 4-6 hours occurred in 44% of both groups.

In terms of neurologic outcomes, an excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, was achieved in 28% of the 0.25-mg/kg group and 49% of the 0.32-mg/kg group. A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 46% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 60% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.

Limitations of the study included a small sample size and the lack of a control group. In addition, the study included only Chinese patients, who are known to have different stroke etiologies in comparison with White patients, Dr. Cheng noted.

In the subset of patients who received tenecteplase and who underwent endovascular therapy, fewer patients (8.8%) reached the primary outcome measure of reperfusion without symptomatic ICH, compared with those who received only tenecteplase (40.4%).

“In our study, tenecteplase seems to be quite effective and safe in patients who do not need endovascular therapy,” Dr. Cheng said. “More research is needed to understand why tenecteplase was less effective in restoring blood flow and more likely to result in symptomatic brain bleeding among those who had endovascular therapy.”

The researchers have now started a phase 2b trial, CHABLIS-2. This is a randomized, multicenter, controlled, open-label study of the 0.25-mg/kg dose of tenecteplase.

Commenting on the current study at an ISC press conference, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “This is very important study looking at the question of using thrombolysis out to 24 hours, and it does suggest a benefit, but we don’t know the best dose yet.”

He noted that his hospital system has already switched from alteplase to tenecteplase in the treatment of stroke, and several other centers are also making this switch. “In our center, we use the 0.25-mg/kg dose, but we don’t routinely treat patients beyond the 4.5-hour time window,” Dr. Jovin reported.

“The signals are there for a longer treatment window,” he said. “But this study was not aiming to directly answer whether tenecteplase is better than no treatment or alteplase, or its use with endovascular therapy.”

Noting that there are similar randomized trials ongoing in the United States and other countries exploring the same doses of tenecteplase, he said he thought the “dose and approach is applicable to U.S. practice.”

The CHABLIS study was funded by national key research and development program of China from the Science and Technology Ministry. Tenecteplase was provided by Guangzhou Recomgen Biotech.

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

The thrombolytic tenecteplase may have a role in reestablishing blood flow in patients with large-vessel acute ischemic stroke up to 24 hours after stroke onset selected by perfusion imaging, a new trial from China suggests.

The phase 2a CHABLIS trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Xin Cheng, MD, associate professor of neurology at the Huashan Hospital of Fudan University and the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Shanghai, China.

“These results are the first to be reported with tenecteplase in the extended time window and suggest that it may be feasible to extend the time window of intravenous thrombolysis to 24 hours after last known well through perfusion imaging selection,” she concluded at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Cheng noted that alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator) is the standard of care for thrombolysis in stroke, with a time window of up to 4.5 hours after stroke onset. However, the recent EXTEND trial suggested benefit of alteplase in patients who were between 4.5 and 9 hours of stroke onset and who had hypoperfused but salvageable regions of brain detected on automated perfusion imaging.

Tenecteplase is a genetically modified variant of alteplase. It has received regulatory approval for treatment of myocardial infarction. Dr. Cheng said there is increasing interest in tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase, mainly because of its practical advantages (single bolus, rather than 1-hour infusion) and its having a number of hypothetical advantages over alteplase, including greater fibrin specificity and lesser likelihood of fibrinogen depletion.

Until now, studies of tenecteplase in stroke have included patients in the traditional time window, which has been no longer than 6 hours from stroke onset, she added.

For the current CHABLIS trial, the Chinese researchers investigated the use of tenecteplase administered to ischemic stroke patients at 4.5-24 hours from time of their being last seen well who were selected by significant penumbral mismatch on perfusion imaging. The trial included 86 patients who had an anterior large-vessel occlusion or severe stenosis identified on head and neck CT angiography and penumbral mismatch on CT perfusion imaging. They were randomized to one of two doses of tenecteplase, 0.25 mg/kg or 0.32 mg/kg.

The primary outcome was the achievement of reperfusion without symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24-48 hours after thrombolysis. This occurred in 32% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 23.3% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.

Recanalization at 4-6 hours occurred in 44% of both groups.

In terms of neurologic outcomes, an excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, was achieved in 28% of the 0.25-mg/kg group and 49% of the 0.32-mg/kg group. A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 46% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 60% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.

Limitations of the study included a small sample size and the lack of a control group. In addition, the study included only Chinese patients, who are known to have different stroke etiologies in comparison with White patients, Dr. Cheng noted.

In the subset of patients who received tenecteplase and who underwent endovascular therapy, fewer patients (8.8%) reached the primary outcome measure of reperfusion without symptomatic ICH, compared with those who received only tenecteplase (40.4%).

“In our study, tenecteplase seems to be quite effective and safe in patients who do not need endovascular therapy,” Dr. Cheng said. “More research is needed to understand why tenecteplase was less effective in restoring blood flow and more likely to result in symptomatic brain bleeding among those who had endovascular therapy.”

The researchers have now started a phase 2b trial, CHABLIS-2. This is a randomized, multicenter, controlled, open-label study of the 0.25-mg/kg dose of tenecteplase.

Commenting on the current study at an ISC press conference, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “This is very important study looking at the question of using thrombolysis out to 24 hours, and it does suggest a benefit, but we don’t know the best dose yet.”

He noted that his hospital system has already switched from alteplase to tenecteplase in the treatment of stroke, and several other centers are also making this switch. “In our center, we use the 0.25-mg/kg dose, but we don’t routinely treat patients beyond the 4.5-hour time window,” Dr. Jovin reported.

“The signals are there for a longer treatment window,” he said. “But this study was not aiming to directly answer whether tenecteplase is better than no treatment or alteplase, or its use with endovascular therapy.”

Noting that there are similar randomized trials ongoing in the United States and other countries exploring the same doses of tenecteplase, he said he thought the “dose and approach is applicable to U.S. practice.”

The CHABLIS study was funded by national key research and development program of China from the Science and Technology Ministry. Tenecteplase was provided by Guangzhou Recomgen Biotech.

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

Adjunctive treatment with intravenous tirofiban does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke who undergo endovascular treatment within 24 hours of symptom onset, new data suggest.

In a randomized, phase 3 trial of more than 900 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular treatment, the median Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days was 3 both in patients who received tirofiban and those who received placebo.

“There was treatment-effect modification by stroke etiology, where patients with large-artery atherosclerosis [LAA] seemed to benefit from the treatment,” said investigator Raul Nogueira, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Stroke Institute, during his presentation. “Tirofiban may improve endovascular treatment outcomes in LAA strokes. This obviously requires further investigation in future trials to confirm these findings.”

Results of the RESCUE BT trial were presented at the hybrid International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022, which was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, and online.
 

Multicenter trial

Endovascular treatment greatly increases the rate of reperfusion and improves functional outcomes in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke, the researchers note. But mechanical thrombectomy devices may injure the vessel wall, which can lead to clot formation and vessel reocclusion.

Platelet inhibition is a potential tactic for improving outcomes in this setting. Tirofiban, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor, is a reversible antiplatelet drug with a rapid onset of action and a short half-life. The drug’s safety and efficacy in acute coronary syndrome are well established. There has been little evidence to date, however, on whether tirofiban improves outcomes among patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke.

The investigators conducted the Endovascular Treatment With Versus Without Tirofiban for Stroke Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion (RESCUE BT) trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IV tirofiban therapy before endovascular treatment in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke. They recruited consecutive patients at 55 thrombectomy-capable hospitals in China.

Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and presented within 24 hours of the time they were last seen when well. Baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was required to be 30 or lower, and all patients were required to have plans to undergo endovascular treatment. Eligible patients also had a baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of 6 or greater.

Patients were randomized in groups of equal size to placebo or tirofiban and stratified by NIHSS score and occlusion site. Tirofiban was administered in a 10-mcg/kg bolus followed by continuous infusion (0.15 mcg/kg per min) for 24 hours. All patients underwent rapid endovascular treatment.

At the 20th hour after treatment initiation, antiplatelets were administered orally. IV study drug was stopped at the 24th hour.

The study’s primary endpoint was disability level, as measured by overall distribution of the 90-day mRS score. The primary safety endpoints were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) at 48 hours and mortality at 90 days.
 

Increased ICH risk

The investigators screened 1,970 patients and enrolled 950 into their study. The population’s median age was 67 years, and 58.8% of participants were men. In all, 463 participants were randomly assigned to tirofiban, and 485 to placebo. Two patients withdrew consent, and none were lost to follow-up.

Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. One difference, however, was that large-vessel occlusion was less prevalent in the tirofiban group (42.6%) than in the control group (49.1%).

The primary endpoint did not differ between treatment groups. The adjusted common odds ratio was 1.09 (P = .46). “There is perhaps a sign that there is maybe a favorable effect of tirofiban,” said Dr. Nogueira. “However, this did not reach statistical significance.”

The rates of symptomatic ICH and mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between groups. There was a trend toward a higher rate of symptomatic ICH in the tirofiban group, however. Moreover, the rate of any ICH was 34.9% in the tirofiban group and 28.0% in the control group (P = .02).

In prespecified subgroup analysis, the researchers found that, among patients with large-vessel occlusion, the adjusted common odds ratio was 1.43 favoring tirofiban treatment. No other subgroups showed significant differences.

“In the intention-to-treat analysis, tirofiban did not improve clinical outcomes in the overall study population,” said Dr. Nogueira. “It did increase the rate of any ICH and potentially increased the rate of symptomatic ICH as well.”

The ongoing RESCUE BT2 trial is examining the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke with non–large-vessel occlusion. As of Jan. 20, 781 patients had been assigned randomly to treatment, said Dr. Nogueira.
 

Patient selection crucial

Louise McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said that the study was well designed.

“The concern with any kind of platelet therapy or adjunctive therapy is hemorrhage,” said Dr. McCullough, who was not involved in the research. The results in the overall population support this concern.

The location of the trial sites may have influenced the results. “It was a multicenter trial, but it was predominantly done in Asia, and we know that there are higher levels of intracranial atherosclerosis in that population,” said Dr. McCullough.

The results indicate a potential benefit of tirofiban in patients with large-vessel occlusion, yet this finding raises practical questions. “It’s often difficult to know if these patients have atherosclerosis until you’re actually in the vessel,” said Dr. McCullough.

The findings may not have immediate practical implications. “I don’t think that in routine clinical practice it’s something that we would offer until we can decide how safe it is,” said Dr. McCullough. The question will be how to select the populations in whom the drug will have the most efficacy.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Army Medical University, and Lunan Pharmaceutical Group, the manufacturer of tirofiban. Dr. Nogueira reported holding stock in Brainomix, Viz-AI, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Viz-AI, and Ceretrieve. He has received research support from Corindus Vascular Robotics. Dr. Nogueira reported other financial relationships related to Stryker Neurovascular, Medtronic, Cerenovus, and Phenox. Dr. McCullough has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adjunctive treatment with intravenous tirofiban does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke who undergo endovascular treatment within 24 hours of symptom onset, new data suggest.

In a randomized, phase 3 trial of more than 900 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular treatment, the median Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days was 3 both in patients who received tirofiban and those who received placebo.

“There was treatment-effect modification by stroke etiology, where patients with large-artery atherosclerosis [LAA] seemed to benefit from the treatment,” said investigator Raul Nogueira, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Stroke Institute, during his presentation. “Tirofiban may improve endovascular treatment outcomes in LAA strokes. This obviously requires further investigation in future trials to confirm these findings.”

Results of the RESCUE BT trial were presented at the hybrid International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022, which was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, and online.
 

Multicenter trial

Endovascular treatment greatly increases the rate of reperfusion and improves functional outcomes in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke, the researchers note. But mechanical thrombectomy devices may injure the vessel wall, which can lead to clot formation and vessel reocclusion.

Platelet inhibition is a potential tactic for improving outcomes in this setting. Tirofiban, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor, is a reversible antiplatelet drug with a rapid onset of action and a short half-life. The drug’s safety and efficacy in acute coronary syndrome are well established. There has been little evidence to date, however, on whether tirofiban improves outcomes among patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke.

The investigators conducted the Endovascular Treatment With Versus Without Tirofiban for Stroke Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion (RESCUE BT) trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IV tirofiban therapy before endovascular treatment in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke. They recruited consecutive patients at 55 thrombectomy-capable hospitals in China.

Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and presented within 24 hours of the time they were last seen when well. Baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was required to be 30 or lower, and all patients were required to have plans to undergo endovascular treatment. Eligible patients also had a baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of 6 or greater.

Patients were randomized in groups of equal size to placebo or tirofiban and stratified by NIHSS score and occlusion site. Tirofiban was administered in a 10-mcg/kg bolus followed by continuous infusion (0.15 mcg/kg per min) for 24 hours. All patients underwent rapid endovascular treatment.

At the 20th hour after treatment initiation, antiplatelets were administered orally. IV study drug was stopped at the 24th hour.

The study’s primary endpoint was disability level, as measured by overall distribution of the 90-day mRS score. The primary safety endpoints were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) at 48 hours and mortality at 90 days.
 

Increased ICH risk

The investigators screened 1,970 patients and enrolled 950 into their study. The population’s median age was 67 years, and 58.8% of participants were men. In all, 463 participants were randomly assigned to tirofiban, and 485 to placebo. Two patients withdrew consent, and none were lost to follow-up.

Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. One difference, however, was that large-vessel occlusion was less prevalent in the tirofiban group (42.6%) than in the control group (49.1%).

The primary endpoint did not differ between treatment groups. The adjusted common odds ratio was 1.09 (P = .46). “There is perhaps a sign that there is maybe a favorable effect of tirofiban,” said Dr. Nogueira. “However, this did not reach statistical significance.”

The rates of symptomatic ICH and mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between groups. There was a trend toward a higher rate of symptomatic ICH in the tirofiban group, however. Moreover, the rate of any ICH was 34.9% in the tirofiban group and 28.0% in the control group (P = .02).

In prespecified subgroup analysis, the researchers found that, among patients with large-vessel occlusion, the adjusted common odds ratio was 1.43 favoring tirofiban treatment. No other subgroups showed significant differences.

“In the intention-to-treat analysis, tirofiban did not improve clinical outcomes in the overall study population,” said Dr. Nogueira. “It did increase the rate of any ICH and potentially increased the rate of symptomatic ICH as well.”

The ongoing RESCUE BT2 trial is examining the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke with non–large-vessel occlusion. As of Jan. 20, 781 patients had been assigned randomly to treatment, said Dr. Nogueira.
 

Patient selection crucial

Louise McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said that the study was well designed.

“The concern with any kind of platelet therapy or adjunctive therapy is hemorrhage,” said Dr. McCullough, who was not involved in the research. The results in the overall population support this concern.

The location of the trial sites may have influenced the results. “It was a multicenter trial, but it was predominantly done in Asia, and we know that there are higher levels of intracranial atherosclerosis in that population,” said Dr. McCullough.

The results indicate a potential benefit of tirofiban in patients with large-vessel occlusion, yet this finding raises practical questions. “It’s often difficult to know if these patients have atherosclerosis until you’re actually in the vessel,” said Dr. McCullough.

The findings may not have immediate practical implications. “I don’t think that in routine clinical practice it’s something that we would offer until we can decide how safe it is,” said Dr. McCullough. The question will be how to select the populations in whom the drug will have the most efficacy.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Army Medical University, and Lunan Pharmaceutical Group, the manufacturer of tirofiban. Dr. Nogueira reported holding stock in Brainomix, Viz-AI, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Viz-AI, and Ceretrieve. He has received research support from Corindus Vascular Robotics. Dr. Nogueira reported other financial relationships related to Stryker Neurovascular, Medtronic, Cerenovus, and Phenox. Dr. McCullough has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adjunctive treatment with intravenous tirofiban does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke who undergo endovascular treatment within 24 hours of symptom onset, new data suggest.

In a randomized, phase 3 trial of more than 900 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular treatment, the median Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days was 3 both in patients who received tirofiban and those who received placebo.

“There was treatment-effect modification by stroke etiology, where patients with large-artery atherosclerosis [LAA] seemed to benefit from the treatment,” said investigator Raul Nogueira, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Stroke Institute, during his presentation. “Tirofiban may improve endovascular treatment outcomes in LAA strokes. This obviously requires further investigation in future trials to confirm these findings.”

Results of the RESCUE BT trial were presented at the hybrid International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022, which was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, and online.
 

Multicenter trial

Endovascular treatment greatly increases the rate of reperfusion and improves functional outcomes in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke, the researchers note. But mechanical thrombectomy devices may injure the vessel wall, which can lead to clot formation and vessel reocclusion.

Platelet inhibition is a potential tactic for improving outcomes in this setting. Tirofiban, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor, is a reversible antiplatelet drug with a rapid onset of action and a short half-life. The drug’s safety and efficacy in acute coronary syndrome are well established. There has been little evidence to date, however, on whether tirofiban improves outcomes among patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke.

The investigators conducted the Endovascular Treatment With Versus Without Tirofiban for Stroke Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion (RESCUE BT) trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IV tirofiban therapy before endovascular treatment in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke. They recruited consecutive patients at 55 thrombectomy-capable hospitals in China.

Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and presented within 24 hours of the time they were last seen when well. Baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was required to be 30 or lower, and all patients were required to have plans to undergo endovascular treatment. Eligible patients also had a baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of 6 or greater.

Patients were randomized in groups of equal size to placebo or tirofiban and stratified by NIHSS score and occlusion site. Tirofiban was administered in a 10-mcg/kg bolus followed by continuous infusion (0.15 mcg/kg per min) for 24 hours. All patients underwent rapid endovascular treatment.

At the 20th hour after treatment initiation, antiplatelets were administered orally. IV study drug was stopped at the 24th hour.

The study’s primary endpoint was disability level, as measured by overall distribution of the 90-day mRS score. The primary safety endpoints were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) at 48 hours and mortality at 90 days.
 

Increased ICH risk

The investigators screened 1,970 patients and enrolled 950 into their study. The population’s median age was 67 years, and 58.8% of participants were men. In all, 463 participants were randomly assigned to tirofiban, and 485 to placebo. Two patients withdrew consent, and none were lost to follow-up.

Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. One difference, however, was that large-vessel occlusion was less prevalent in the tirofiban group (42.6%) than in the control group (49.1%).

The primary endpoint did not differ between treatment groups. The adjusted common odds ratio was 1.09 (P = .46). “There is perhaps a sign that there is maybe a favorable effect of tirofiban,” said Dr. Nogueira. “However, this did not reach statistical significance.”

The rates of symptomatic ICH and mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between groups. There was a trend toward a higher rate of symptomatic ICH in the tirofiban group, however. Moreover, the rate of any ICH was 34.9% in the tirofiban group and 28.0% in the control group (P = .02).

In prespecified subgroup analysis, the researchers found that, among patients with large-vessel occlusion, the adjusted common odds ratio was 1.43 favoring tirofiban treatment. No other subgroups showed significant differences.

“In the intention-to-treat analysis, tirofiban did not improve clinical outcomes in the overall study population,” said Dr. Nogueira. “It did increase the rate of any ICH and potentially increased the rate of symptomatic ICH as well.”

The ongoing RESCUE BT2 trial is examining the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke with non–large-vessel occlusion. As of Jan. 20, 781 patients had been assigned randomly to treatment, said Dr. Nogueira.
 

Patient selection crucial

Louise McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said that the study was well designed.

“The concern with any kind of platelet therapy or adjunctive therapy is hemorrhage,” said Dr. McCullough, who was not involved in the research. The results in the overall population support this concern.

The location of the trial sites may have influenced the results. “It was a multicenter trial, but it was predominantly done in Asia, and we know that there are higher levels of intracranial atherosclerosis in that population,” said Dr. McCullough.

The results indicate a potential benefit of tirofiban in patients with large-vessel occlusion, yet this finding raises practical questions. “It’s often difficult to know if these patients have atherosclerosis until you’re actually in the vessel,” said Dr. McCullough.

The findings may not have immediate practical implications. “I don’t think that in routine clinical practice it’s something that we would offer until we can decide how safe it is,” said Dr. McCullough. The question will be how to select the populations in whom the drug will have the most efficacy.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Army Medical University, and Lunan Pharmaceutical Group, the manufacturer of tirofiban. Dr. Nogueira reported holding stock in Brainomix, Viz-AI, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Viz-AI, and Ceretrieve. He has received research support from Corindus Vascular Robotics. Dr. Nogueira reported other financial relationships related to Stryker Neurovascular, Medtronic, Cerenovus, and Phenox. Dr. McCullough has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes were mixed among ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion who underwent thrombectomy by an interventional cardiologist as part of a multidisciplinary stroke team, in a single-center, prospective study from Poland.

Results from the 2-year experience show mechanical thrombectomy took longer when carried out by interventional cardiologists than by vascular surgeons and neuroradiologists (120 minutes vs. 105 minutes; P = .020).

The procedures were also less likely to achieve angiographic success, defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale score of 2b or 3 (55.7% vs. 71.7%; P = .013), reported Krystian Wita, MD, PhD, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, and colleagues.

The differences in duration and recanalization require further attention, they noted, and are related to a learning curve, more time dedicated to decision-making and, in some cases, needing a second opinion. Cardiologists performed 80 procedures compared with 116 for vascular surgeons and 52 for neuroradiologists, and treated twice as many patients with a previous stroke (13.9% vs. 6.5%).

Still, the interventional cardiologist- and noncardiologist-treated groups had similar functional independence at 3 months, defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 (44.4% vs. 54.8%; P = .275). Mortality was also similar at 3 months (31.3% vs. 28.0%; P = .595).

“This is the first analysis to prove the noninferiority of the cardiology services in the treatment of stroke with mechanical thrombectomy,” the authors reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

But commenting for this news organization, J Mocco, MD, senior vice chair of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said this study isn’t designed as a noninferiority trial, is “grossly underpowered,” and the comparator cohort is not a gold standard comparator cohort.

“More importantly, they show that the cardiologists got significantly worse technical results and took longer, and we know that technical outcomes and the time to treatment are the two strongest predictors of outcome, which completely correlates with the fact that patients had 11% worse outcomes overall,” he said.

“It’s dumbfounding to me that this has been presented as evidence [that] an interventional cardiologist should be performing thrombectomy,” added Dr. Mocco, president-elect of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

Dr. Wita and coauthor Andrzej Kulach, MD, PhD, also with the Medical University of Silesia, told this news organization that timing is critical in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and the sooner it’s performed, the better. But it cannot be performed by just any interventional cardiologist (IC).

“The IC must be trained in the procedure and cooperate with the neurologist to get good results,” they said. “We would like to stress that it is not a procedure for any cath lab and any cardiologist on duty. A network of cardiologists trained in MT must be organized and the stroke teams developed for the local unit to make the strategy reasonable and safe.”

The study was conducted from 2019 to 2020 and to participate, interventional cardiologists had to have performed a minimum of 700 angioplasties and 1,500 coronary angiographies and undergone complex training in thrombectomy, including 14-day training in a reference center and certified courses on a phantom and an animal model. They were also experienced in carotid angioplasty and participated as the second operators in neurointerventions.

“Considering the cardiologists are acting here in a multidisciplinary team led by neurologists, the findings are not surprising,” Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said. “What was surprising, is a certain level of skepticism among neurologists when cardiologists are to be involved in the procedure. We hope the quality of cardiology services will help to get over it.”

Major thrombectomy trials such as PRAGUE-16 have supported a role for interventional cardiologists to help meet demand for stroke thrombectomy. Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said there’s a lack of trained neuroradiologists and developed infrastructure for thrombectomy, whereas there’s a sufficient network of catheterization laboratories and trained cardiologists who could be involved.

The take-home message from the study, they said, is to “use the existing infrastructure to optimize the treatment of stroke. Building one from the very beginning is more time and resources-consuming.”

Dr. Mocco said a physician’s training is not a factor in the pathway to neurointerventional expertise, as long as they’re willing to put in the appropriate amount of specialization and training.

“There’s no way this represents a turf war or the neurology community somehow protecting its space, which is often used as a distraction, just like the idea that there’s not enough people,” he said. “It’s just not the case. Neurointervention is the most multispecialty space that I’m aware of.”

In the United States, at least, the problem isn’t a lack of resources or people to provide the service, but in getting patients to the correct hospitals, Dr. Mocco said. “We don’t have regionalized stroke care in the United States for the most part, so patients go to any hospital that says they provide stroke care rather than necessarily being triaged to capable centers that can provide the care.”

A 2021 Medicare analysis by Dr. Mocco and colleagues found that higher physician and hospital stroke thrombectomy volumes were associated with lower inpatient mortality and better outcomes.

Efforts are underway to regionalize care and delivery of patients in Los Angeles County and New York City, for example, where ambulances preferentially take patients with suspected large vessel occlusion to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers certified by independent organizations, Dr. Mocco said. In New York, “they’ve shown it has improved outcomes.”

Estêvão Carvalho de Campos Martins, MD, Hospital de Força Aérea do Galeão, Rio de Janeiro, and Fernando Luiz de Melo Bernardi, MD, Hospital Regional do Oeste, Chapecó, Brazil, noted in an accompanying editorial that the observational study is “hypothesis-generating only” and that the disconnect between technical and clinical outcomes is due to a type II error of low power.

They suggest that collaboration between specialties will be “essential for defining the optimal training program, so that ICs can reach solid procedural results.

“The accumulated experience with virtual simulation-based training for stroke could act as an educational accelerator but should be inserted in a prespecified program,” the editorialists said. “How to train and how to insert ICs into [an] MT interdisciplinary team is the current debate; meanwhile ICs are here, and many of them already contributing.”

Dr. Mocco is the principal investigator on research trials funded by Stryker Neurovascular, Microvention, and Penumbra; and is an investor in Cerebrotech, Imperative Care, Endostream, Viseon, BlinkTBI, Myra Medical, Serenity, Vastrax, NTI, RIST, Viz.ai , Synchron, Radical, and Truvic. He serves, or has recently served, as a consultant for: Cerebrotech, Viseon, Endostream, Vastrax, RIST, Synchron, Viz.ai , Perflow, and CVAid. Dr. Carvalho de Campos Martins and Dr. Luiz de Melo Bernardi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes were mixed among ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion who underwent thrombectomy by an interventional cardiologist as part of a multidisciplinary stroke team, in a single-center, prospective study from Poland.

Results from the 2-year experience show mechanical thrombectomy took longer when carried out by interventional cardiologists than by vascular surgeons and neuroradiologists (120 minutes vs. 105 minutes; P = .020).

The procedures were also less likely to achieve angiographic success, defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale score of 2b or 3 (55.7% vs. 71.7%; P = .013), reported Krystian Wita, MD, PhD, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, and colleagues.

The differences in duration and recanalization require further attention, they noted, and are related to a learning curve, more time dedicated to decision-making and, in some cases, needing a second opinion. Cardiologists performed 80 procedures compared with 116 for vascular surgeons and 52 for neuroradiologists, and treated twice as many patients with a previous stroke (13.9% vs. 6.5%).

Still, the interventional cardiologist- and noncardiologist-treated groups had similar functional independence at 3 months, defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 (44.4% vs. 54.8%; P = .275). Mortality was also similar at 3 months (31.3% vs. 28.0%; P = .595).

“This is the first analysis to prove the noninferiority of the cardiology services in the treatment of stroke with mechanical thrombectomy,” the authors reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

But commenting for this news organization, J Mocco, MD, senior vice chair of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said this study isn’t designed as a noninferiority trial, is “grossly underpowered,” and the comparator cohort is not a gold standard comparator cohort.

“More importantly, they show that the cardiologists got significantly worse technical results and took longer, and we know that technical outcomes and the time to treatment are the two strongest predictors of outcome, which completely correlates with the fact that patients had 11% worse outcomes overall,” he said.

“It’s dumbfounding to me that this has been presented as evidence [that] an interventional cardiologist should be performing thrombectomy,” added Dr. Mocco, president-elect of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

Dr. Wita and coauthor Andrzej Kulach, MD, PhD, also with the Medical University of Silesia, told this news organization that timing is critical in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and the sooner it’s performed, the better. But it cannot be performed by just any interventional cardiologist (IC).

“The IC must be trained in the procedure and cooperate with the neurologist to get good results,” they said. “We would like to stress that it is not a procedure for any cath lab and any cardiologist on duty. A network of cardiologists trained in MT must be organized and the stroke teams developed for the local unit to make the strategy reasonable and safe.”

The study was conducted from 2019 to 2020 and to participate, interventional cardiologists had to have performed a minimum of 700 angioplasties and 1,500 coronary angiographies and undergone complex training in thrombectomy, including 14-day training in a reference center and certified courses on a phantom and an animal model. They were also experienced in carotid angioplasty and participated as the second operators in neurointerventions.

“Considering the cardiologists are acting here in a multidisciplinary team led by neurologists, the findings are not surprising,” Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said. “What was surprising, is a certain level of skepticism among neurologists when cardiologists are to be involved in the procedure. We hope the quality of cardiology services will help to get over it.”

Major thrombectomy trials such as PRAGUE-16 have supported a role for interventional cardiologists to help meet demand for stroke thrombectomy. Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said there’s a lack of trained neuroradiologists and developed infrastructure for thrombectomy, whereas there’s a sufficient network of catheterization laboratories and trained cardiologists who could be involved.

The take-home message from the study, they said, is to “use the existing infrastructure to optimize the treatment of stroke. Building one from the very beginning is more time and resources-consuming.”

Dr. Mocco said a physician’s training is not a factor in the pathway to neurointerventional expertise, as long as they’re willing to put in the appropriate amount of specialization and training.

“There’s no way this represents a turf war or the neurology community somehow protecting its space, which is often used as a distraction, just like the idea that there’s not enough people,” he said. “It’s just not the case. Neurointervention is the most multispecialty space that I’m aware of.”

In the United States, at least, the problem isn’t a lack of resources or people to provide the service, but in getting patients to the correct hospitals, Dr. Mocco said. “We don’t have regionalized stroke care in the United States for the most part, so patients go to any hospital that says they provide stroke care rather than necessarily being triaged to capable centers that can provide the care.”

A 2021 Medicare analysis by Dr. Mocco and colleagues found that higher physician and hospital stroke thrombectomy volumes were associated with lower inpatient mortality and better outcomes.

Efforts are underway to regionalize care and delivery of patients in Los Angeles County and New York City, for example, where ambulances preferentially take patients with suspected large vessel occlusion to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers certified by independent organizations, Dr. Mocco said. In New York, “they’ve shown it has improved outcomes.”

Estêvão Carvalho de Campos Martins, MD, Hospital de Força Aérea do Galeão, Rio de Janeiro, and Fernando Luiz de Melo Bernardi, MD, Hospital Regional do Oeste, Chapecó, Brazil, noted in an accompanying editorial that the observational study is “hypothesis-generating only” and that the disconnect between technical and clinical outcomes is due to a type II error of low power.

They suggest that collaboration between specialties will be “essential for defining the optimal training program, so that ICs can reach solid procedural results.

“The accumulated experience with virtual simulation-based training for stroke could act as an educational accelerator but should be inserted in a prespecified program,” the editorialists said. “How to train and how to insert ICs into [an] MT interdisciplinary team is the current debate; meanwhile ICs are here, and many of them already contributing.”

Dr. Mocco is the principal investigator on research trials funded by Stryker Neurovascular, Microvention, and Penumbra; and is an investor in Cerebrotech, Imperative Care, Endostream, Viseon, BlinkTBI, Myra Medical, Serenity, Vastrax, NTI, RIST, Viz.ai , Synchron, Radical, and Truvic. He serves, or has recently served, as a consultant for: Cerebrotech, Viseon, Endostream, Vastrax, RIST, Synchron, Viz.ai , Perflow, and CVAid. Dr. Carvalho de Campos Martins and Dr. Luiz de Melo Bernardi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes were mixed among ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion who underwent thrombectomy by an interventional cardiologist as part of a multidisciplinary stroke team, in a single-center, prospective study from Poland.

Results from the 2-year experience show mechanical thrombectomy took longer when carried out by interventional cardiologists than by vascular surgeons and neuroradiologists (120 minutes vs. 105 minutes; P = .020).

The procedures were also less likely to achieve angiographic success, defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale score of 2b or 3 (55.7% vs. 71.7%; P = .013), reported Krystian Wita, MD, PhD, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, and colleagues.

The differences in duration and recanalization require further attention, they noted, and are related to a learning curve, more time dedicated to decision-making and, in some cases, needing a second opinion. Cardiologists performed 80 procedures compared with 116 for vascular surgeons and 52 for neuroradiologists, and treated twice as many patients with a previous stroke (13.9% vs. 6.5%).

Still, the interventional cardiologist- and noncardiologist-treated groups had similar functional independence at 3 months, defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 (44.4% vs. 54.8%; P = .275). Mortality was also similar at 3 months (31.3% vs. 28.0%; P = .595).

“This is the first analysis to prove the noninferiority of the cardiology services in the treatment of stroke with mechanical thrombectomy,” the authors reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

But commenting for this news organization, J Mocco, MD, senior vice chair of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said this study isn’t designed as a noninferiority trial, is “grossly underpowered,” and the comparator cohort is not a gold standard comparator cohort.

“More importantly, they show that the cardiologists got significantly worse technical results and took longer, and we know that technical outcomes and the time to treatment are the two strongest predictors of outcome, which completely correlates with the fact that patients had 11% worse outcomes overall,” he said.

“It’s dumbfounding to me that this has been presented as evidence [that] an interventional cardiologist should be performing thrombectomy,” added Dr. Mocco, president-elect of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

Dr. Wita and coauthor Andrzej Kulach, MD, PhD, also with the Medical University of Silesia, told this news organization that timing is critical in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and the sooner it’s performed, the better. But it cannot be performed by just any interventional cardiologist (IC).

“The IC must be trained in the procedure and cooperate with the neurologist to get good results,” they said. “We would like to stress that it is not a procedure for any cath lab and any cardiologist on duty. A network of cardiologists trained in MT must be organized and the stroke teams developed for the local unit to make the strategy reasonable and safe.”

The study was conducted from 2019 to 2020 and to participate, interventional cardiologists had to have performed a minimum of 700 angioplasties and 1,500 coronary angiographies and undergone complex training in thrombectomy, including 14-day training in a reference center and certified courses on a phantom and an animal model. They were also experienced in carotid angioplasty and participated as the second operators in neurointerventions.

“Considering the cardiologists are acting here in a multidisciplinary team led by neurologists, the findings are not surprising,” Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said. “What was surprising, is a certain level of skepticism among neurologists when cardiologists are to be involved in the procedure. We hope the quality of cardiology services will help to get over it.”

Major thrombectomy trials such as PRAGUE-16 have supported a role for interventional cardiologists to help meet demand for stroke thrombectomy. Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said there’s a lack of trained neuroradiologists and developed infrastructure for thrombectomy, whereas there’s a sufficient network of catheterization laboratories and trained cardiologists who could be involved.

The take-home message from the study, they said, is to “use the existing infrastructure to optimize the treatment of stroke. Building one from the very beginning is more time and resources-consuming.”

Dr. Mocco said a physician’s training is not a factor in the pathway to neurointerventional expertise, as long as they’re willing to put in the appropriate amount of specialization and training.

“There’s no way this represents a turf war or the neurology community somehow protecting its space, which is often used as a distraction, just like the idea that there’s not enough people,” he said. “It’s just not the case. Neurointervention is the most multispecialty space that I’m aware of.”

In the United States, at least, the problem isn’t a lack of resources or people to provide the service, but in getting patients to the correct hospitals, Dr. Mocco said. “We don’t have regionalized stroke care in the United States for the most part, so patients go to any hospital that says they provide stroke care rather than necessarily being triaged to capable centers that can provide the care.”

A 2021 Medicare analysis by Dr. Mocco and colleagues found that higher physician and hospital stroke thrombectomy volumes were associated with lower inpatient mortality and better outcomes.

Efforts are underway to regionalize care and delivery of patients in Los Angeles County and New York City, for example, where ambulances preferentially take patients with suspected large vessel occlusion to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers certified by independent organizations, Dr. Mocco said. In New York, “they’ve shown it has improved outcomes.”

Estêvão Carvalho de Campos Martins, MD, Hospital de Força Aérea do Galeão, Rio de Janeiro, and Fernando Luiz de Melo Bernardi, MD, Hospital Regional do Oeste, Chapecó, Brazil, noted in an accompanying editorial that the observational study is “hypothesis-generating only” and that the disconnect between technical and clinical outcomes is due to a type II error of low power.

They suggest that collaboration between specialties will be “essential for defining the optimal training program, so that ICs can reach solid procedural results.

“The accumulated experience with virtual simulation-based training for stroke could act as an educational accelerator but should be inserted in a prespecified program,” the editorialists said. “How to train and how to insert ICs into [an] MT interdisciplinary team is the current debate; meanwhile ICs are here, and many of them already contributing.”

Dr. Mocco is the principal investigator on research trials funded by Stryker Neurovascular, Microvention, and Penumbra; and is an investor in Cerebrotech, Imperative Care, Endostream, Viseon, BlinkTBI, Myra Medical, Serenity, Vastrax, NTI, RIST, Viz.ai , Synchron, Radical, and Truvic. He serves, or has recently served, as a consultant for: Cerebrotech, Viseon, Endostream, Vastrax, RIST, Synchron, Viz.ai , Perflow, and CVAid. Dr. Carvalho de Campos Martins and Dr. Luiz de Melo Bernardi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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