Emergency Medicine

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

A novel telemedicine approach to remotely guide ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treatment in four Latin American countries screened more than 780,000 patients and resulted in a mortality rate of 5.2%, results from a 1-year, prospective, observational study showed.

“We have created a modality where the care of acute MI can be remotely guided,” lead investigator Sameer Mehta, MD, MBA, said during a press briefing at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions virtual annual scientific sessions. “This flattens the disparity between the developed and the developing countries, particularly in the poorer parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.”

Dr. Mehta, chairman of the Lumen Foundation in Miami, and colleagues developed a “hub and spoke” platform to expand STEMI access to more than 100 million people in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. For the effort, known as the Latin America Telemedicine Infarct Network (LATIN), “spokes” consisted of small clinics and primary health care centers in remote locations, while the “hubs” were medical centers that provided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. There were 313 spokes, 47 hubs, and more than 2,000 health care professionals who participated in the endeavor, including about 600 physicians.

The study, which is the largest of its kind, implemented a 3T strategy: telemedicine, triage, and transport, “which was the hardest part,” Dr. Mehta said. “In some cases, the spokes were located up to 300 miles away from the hubs. Up to 11% of these spokes in the remote areas did not even have a physician. Some had nurses who were triaging the patients.”

Patients who presented at spoke sites were enrolled into LATIN and data were collected through a form that included patient demographics, previous medical history, and an ECG. This information was sent through an app to one of three telemedicine diagnosis centers with 24/7 access to a cardiologist: one in Colombia, one in Brazil, one in Argentina. Once STEMI was identified by ECG, the STEMI protocol was activated, sending alerts to both designated hub and spoke sites and triggering ambulance dispatch. At the spoke sites, thrombolysis, a pharmaco-invasive strategy, or a primary PCI was performed, depending on case and treatment availability. Patients with successful thrombolysis were stabilized for up to 24 hours before transferral to a hub. Patients for whom reperfusion failed were transferred immediately to a hub for rescue PCI.

Dr. Mehta reported findings from 780,234 telemedicine encounters that occurred in the LATIN network in 2018. Telemedicine experts diagnosed 8,395 patients (1%) with STEMI, of which 3,872 (46%) were urgently treated at 47 hubs. A total of 3,015 (78%) were reperfused with PCI. Time-to-telemedicine diagnosis averaged 3.5 minutes. “It used to take us 11 minutes of time to make a diagnosis by telemedicine,” Dr. Mehta said. “By the time we were done with the trial, the time to diagnosis was brought down to 3.5 minutes.” Average door-to-balloon time was 48 minutes and the STEMI mortality was 5.2%. This represents a 55% reduction in STEMI mortality from when LATIN began as a pilot project in 2013, Dr. Mehta said.

Hypertension was the most prevalent underlying disease (59%), followed by smoking (30%) and diabetes (29%), and the male to female STEMI diagnosis ratio was 1.71. The chief reason for nontreatment was coverage denial from insurance carriers (71%). “Getting payers onboard is extremely difficult, because being located here in Miami, is it very hard for me to convince them about the importance of supporting these people,” Dr. Mehta said. “However, as time has passed [and with] coverage of LATIN by the media, the program has become better known. We have been able to work mainly through the health secretaries [in these four countries], but is difficult from there onward.”

LATIN investigators faced other hurdles, which were unique in each of the four countries. “In Colombia, we were facing all sorts of geographical challenges; Brazil was challenging because of its size of the country and [difficulty establishing relationships with] some of the inner-city hospitals,” he said. “Mexico and Argentina were unique from the telemedicine point of view.” The fact that the care of LATIN patients was navigated from one of three telemedicine diagnosis centers “demonstrates the ability of telemedicine,” he said. “If I am able to guide a patient in Mexico from Bogotá, Colombia, it should be easy to guide a patient from Miami who’s presenting in Zambia.”

Dealing with the lack of ambulance services in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina has also been a hitch to the effort. “There is either a complete lack of ambulances or there is no central ambulance system,” he said. “In one of the earlier cities where we started the program in Colombia, 84% of patients used to self-transport. At the moment, 79% are being transported by ambulance. So, the halo effect of how LATIN has helped MI management has been impressive.”

Despite the lack of a comparator study as robust as LATIN, the program was estimated to reach between $39.6 million and $119 million USD total savings during the study period. This includes the cost of tele-emergency encounters, avoided transfers, and the cost of transportation. The investigators project that by the year 2026, 5 million patients could be triaged by this telemedicine pathway, saving $249 million. “As we are getting excited about the developments and the possibilities of telemedicine in the COVID-19 era, I think the work of LATIN becomes all the more relevant,” Dr. Mehta said during his main presentation.

During the press briefing, Timothy D. Henry, MD, praised the success of LATIN in reaching an underserved population. “The majority of these patients 10 years ago were not being treated with any reperfusion therapy at all,” said Dr. Henry, medical director of The Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research and Education at The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati. “With rapid diagnosis and the process of putting [LATIN] in place, that has increased to the point where 78% are now getting primary PCI. That is remarkable.”

[email protected]

A novel telemedicine approach to remotely guide ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treatment in four Latin American countries screened more than 780,000 patients and resulted in a mortality rate of 5.2%, results from a 1-year, prospective, observational study showed.

“We have created a modality where the care of acute MI can be remotely guided,” lead investigator Sameer Mehta, MD, MBA, said during a press briefing at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions virtual annual scientific sessions. “This flattens the disparity between the developed and the developing countries, particularly in the poorer parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.”

Dr. Mehta, chairman of the Lumen Foundation in Miami, and colleagues developed a “hub and spoke” platform to expand STEMI access to more than 100 million people in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. For the effort, known as the Latin America Telemedicine Infarct Network (LATIN), “spokes” consisted of small clinics and primary health care centers in remote locations, while the “hubs” were medical centers that provided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. There were 313 spokes, 47 hubs, and more than 2,000 health care professionals who participated in the endeavor, including about 600 physicians.

The study, which is the largest of its kind, implemented a 3T strategy: telemedicine, triage, and transport, “which was the hardest part,” Dr. Mehta said. “In some cases, the spokes were located up to 300 miles away from the hubs. Up to 11% of these spokes in the remote areas did not even have a physician. Some had nurses who were triaging the patients.”

Patients who presented at spoke sites were enrolled into LATIN and data were collected through a form that included patient demographics, previous medical history, and an ECG. This information was sent through an app to one of three telemedicine diagnosis centers with 24/7 access to a cardiologist: one in Colombia, one in Brazil, one in Argentina. Once STEMI was identified by ECG, the STEMI protocol was activated, sending alerts to both designated hub and spoke sites and triggering ambulance dispatch. At the spoke sites, thrombolysis, a pharmaco-invasive strategy, or a primary PCI was performed, depending on case and treatment availability. Patients with successful thrombolysis were stabilized for up to 24 hours before transferral to a hub. Patients for whom reperfusion failed were transferred immediately to a hub for rescue PCI.

Dr. Mehta reported findings from 780,234 telemedicine encounters that occurred in the LATIN network in 2018. Telemedicine experts diagnosed 8,395 patients (1%) with STEMI, of which 3,872 (46%) were urgently treated at 47 hubs. A total of 3,015 (78%) were reperfused with PCI. Time-to-telemedicine diagnosis averaged 3.5 minutes. “It used to take us 11 minutes of time to make a diagnosis by telemedicine,” Dr. Mehta said. “By the time we were done with the trial, the time to diagnosis was brought down to 3.5 minutes.” Average door-to-balloon time was 48 minutes and the STEMI mortality was 5.2%. This represents a 55% reduction in STEMI mortality from when LATIN began as a pilot project in 2013, Dr. Mehta said.

Hypertension was the most prevalent underlying disease (59%), followed by smoking (30%) and diabetes (29%), and the male to female STEMI diagnosis ratio was 1.71. The chief reason for nontreatment was coverage denial from insurance carriers (71%). “Getting payers onboard is extremely difficult, because being located here in Miami, is it very hard for me to convince them about the importance of supporting these people,” Dr. Mehta said. “However, as time has passed [and with] coverage of LATIN by the media, the program has become better known. We have been able to work mainly through the health secretaries [in these four countries], but is difficult from there onward.”

LATIN investigators faced other hurdles, which were unique in each of the four countries. “In Colombia, we were facing all sorts of geographical challenges; Brazil was challenging because of its size of the country and [difficulty establishing relationships with] some of the inner-city hospitals,” he said. “Mexico and Argentina were unique from the telemedicine point of view.” The fact that the care of LATIN patients was navigated from one of three telemedicine diagnosis centers “demonstrates the ability of telemedicine,” he said. “If I am able to guide a patient in Mexico from Bogotá, Colombia, it should be easy to guide a patient from Miami who’s presenting in Zambia.”

Dealing with the lack of ambulance services in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina has also been a hitch to the effort. “There is either a complete lack of ambulances or there is no central ambulance system,” he said. “In one of the earlier cities where we started the program in Colombia, 84% of patients used to self-transport. At the moment, 79% are being transported by ambulance. So, the halo effect of how LATIN has helped MI management has been impressive.”

Despite the lack of a comparator study as robust as LATIN, the program was estimated to reach between $39.6 million and $119 million USD total savings during the study period. This includes the cost of tele-emergency encounters, avoided transfers, and the cost of transportation. The investigators project that by the year 2026, 5 million patients could be triaged by this telemedicine pathway, saving $249 million. “As we are getting excited about the developments and the possibilities of telemedicine in the COVID-19 era, I think the work of LATIN becomes all the more relevant,” Dr. Mehta said during his main presentation.

During the press briefing, Timothy D. Henry, MD, praised the success of LATIN in reaching an underserved population. “The majority of these patients 10 years ago were not being treated with any reperfusion therapy at all,” said Dr. Henry, medical director of The Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research and Education at The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati. “With rapid diagnosis and the process of putting [LATIN] in place, that has increased to the point where 78% are now getting primary PCI. That is remarkable.”

[email protected]

A novel telemedicine approach to remotely guide ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treatment in four Latin American countries screened more than 780,000 patients and resulted in a mortality rate of 5.2%, results from a 1-year, prospective, observational study showed.

“We have created a modality where the care of acute MI can be remotely guided,” lead investigator Sameer Mehta, MD, MBA, said during a press briefing at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions virtual annual scientific sessions. “This flattens the disparity between the developed and the developing countries, particularly in the poorer parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.”

Dr. Mehta, chairman of the Lumen Foundation in Miami, and colleagues developed a “hub and spoke” platform to expand STEMI access to more than 100 million people in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. For the effort, known as the Latin America Telemedicine Infarct Network (LATIN), “spokes” consisted of small clinics and primary health care centers in remote locations, while the “hubs” were medical centers that provided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. There were 313 spokes, 47 hubs, and more than 2,000 health care professionals who participated in the endeavor, including about 600 physicians.

The study, which is the largest of its kind, implemented a 3T strategy: telemedicine, triage, and transport, “which was the hardest part,” Dr. Mehta said. “In some cases, the spokes were located up to 300 miles away from the hubs. Up to 11% of these spokes in the remote areas did not even have a physician. Some had nurses who were triaging the patients.”

Patients who presented at spoke sites were enrolled into LATIN and data were collected through a form that included patient demographics, previous medical history, and an ECG. This information was sent through an app to one of three telemedicine diagnosis centers with 24/7 access to a cardiologist: one in Colombia, one in Brazil, one in Argentina. Once STEMI was identified by ECG, the STEMI protocol was activated, sending alerts to both designated hub and spoke sites and triggering ambulance dispatch. At the spoke sites, thrombolysis, a pharmaco-invasive strategy, or a primary PCI was performed, depending on case and treatment availability. Patients with successful thrombolysis were stabilized for up to 24 hours before transferral to a hub. Patients for whom reperfusion failed were transferred immediately to a hub for rescue PCI.

Dr. Mehta reported findings from 780,234 telemedicine encounters that occurred in the LATIN network in 2018. Telemedicine experts diagnosed 8,395 patients (1%) with STEMI, of which 3,872 (46%) were urgently treated at 47 hubs. A total of 3,015 (78%) were reperfused with PCI. Time-to-telemedicine diagnosis averaged 3.5 minutes. “It used to take us 11 minutes of time to make a diagnosis by telemedicine,” Dr. Mehta said. “By the time we were done with the trial, the time to diagnosis was brought down to 3.5 minutes.” Average door-to-balloon time was 48 minutes and the STEMI mortality was 5.2%. This represents a 55% reduction in STEMI mortality from when LATIN began as a pilot project in 2013, Dr. Mehta said.

Hypertension was the most prevalent underlying disease (59%), followed by smoking (30%) and diabetes (29%), and the male to female STEMI diagnosis ratio was 1.71. The chief reason for nontreatment was coverage denial from insurance carriers (71%). “Getting payers onboard is extremely difficult, because being located here in Miami, is it very hard for me to convince them about the importance of supporting these people,” Dr. Mehta said. “However, as time has passed [and with] coverage of LATIN by the media, the program has become better known. We have been able to work mainly through the health secretaries [in these four countries], but is difficult from there onward.”

LATIN investigators faced other hurdles, which were unique in each of the four countries. “In Colombia, we were facing all sorts of geographical challenges; Brazil was challenging because of its size of the country and [difficulty establishing relationships with] some of the inner-city hospitals,” he said. “Mexico and Argentina were unique from the telemedicine point of view.” The fact that the care of LATIN patients was navigated from one of three telemedicine diagnosis centers “demonstrates the ability of telemedicine,” he said. “If I am able to guide a patient in Mexico from Bogotá, Colombia, it should be easy to guide a patient from Miami who’s presenting in Zambia.”

Dealing with the lack of ambulance services in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina has also been a hitch to the effort. “There is either a complete lack of ambulances or there is no central ambulance system,” he said. “In one of the earlier cities where we started the program in Colombia, 84% of patients used to self-transport. At the moment, 79% are being transported by ambulance. So, the halo effect of how LATIN has helped MI management has been impressive.”

Despite the lack of a comparator study as robust as LATIN, the program was estimated to reach between $39.6 million and $119 million USD total savings during the study period. This includes the cost of tele-emergency encounters, avoided transfers, and the cost of transportation. The investigators project that by the year 2026, 5 million patients could be triaged by this telemedicine pathway, saving $249 million. “As we are getting excited about the developments and the possibilities of telemedicine in the COVID-19 era, I think the work of LATIN becomes all the more relevant,” Dr. Mehta said during his main presentation.

During the press briefing, Timothy D. Henry, MD, praised the success of LATIN in reaching an underserved population. “The majority of these patients 10 years ago were not being treated with any reperfusion therapy at all,” said Dr. Henry, medical director of The Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research and Education at The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati. “With rapid diagnosis and the process of putting [LATIN] in place, that has increased to the point where 78% are now getting primary PCI. That is remarkable.”

[email protected]

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) who took an investigational agent that targets cardiac myosin over about 7 months showed across-the-board improvements in functional capacity, symptoms, and left ventricular outflow obstruction in a randomized, controlled trial.

Treatment with the oral drug mavacamten (or MYK-461) was well tolerated and showed no untoward safety issues, compared with placebo in the phase 3 EXPLORER-HCM trial, its developer, MyoKardia, announced in a press release. The top-line trial results were made public in advance of a more expansive presentation at a later date.

The company describes mavacamten as an allosteric modulator of cardiac myosin that “reduces cardiac muscle contractility by inhibiting excessive myosin-actin cross-bridge formation that results in hypercontractility, left ventricular hypertrophy and reduced compliance.”

In the EXPLORER-HCM trial, with its 251 patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM, 37% of those randomly assigned to receive once-daily mavacamten and 17% of those given placebo (P =.0005) reached the functional primary endpoint by 30 weeks, the company reported.

The primary endpoint was a composite of either a ≥1.5 mL/kg per min improvement in peak VO2 along with symptomatic improvement or ≥3.0 mL/kg per min improvement without deterioration of symptom status.

Patients taking mavacamten also showed significant improvement in the secondary endpoints of left ventricular outflow tract peak gradient after exercise, NYHA functional class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary scores, and HCM Symptom Questionnaire Shortness of Breath Domain score, all at P = .0001, and peak VO₂ at P = .0006, MyoKardia reported.

The company said beyond its bid to have the drug approved for obstructive HCM, based on its mechanism of action it foresees the drug as a potential treatment for nonobstructive HCM and for some patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) who took an investigational agent that targets cardiac myosin over about 7 months showed across-the-board improvements in functional capacity, symptoms, and left ventricular outflow obstruction in a randomized, controlled trial.

Treatment with the oral drug mavacamten (or MYK-461) was well tolerated and showed no untoward safety issues, compared with placebo in the phase 3 EXPLORER-HCM trial, its developer, MyoKardia, announced in a press release. The top-line trial results were made public in advance of a more expansive presentation at a later date.

The company describes mavacamten as an allosteric modulator of cardiac myosin that “reduces cardiac muscle contractility by inhibiting excessive myosin-actin cross-bridge formation that results in hypercontractility, left ventricular hypertrophy and reduced compliance.”

In the EXPLORER-HCM trial, with its 251 patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM, 37% of those randomly assigned to receive once-daily mavacamten and 17% of those given placebo (P =.0005) reached the functional primary endpoint by 30 weeks, the company reported.

The primary endpoint was a composite of either a ≥1.5 mL/kg per min improvement in peak VO2 along with symptomatic improvement or ≥3.0 mL/kg per min improvement without deterioration of symptom status.

Patients taking mavacamten also showed significant improvement in the secondary endpoints of left ventricular outflow tract peak gradient after exercise, NYHA functional class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary scores, and HCM Symptom Questionnaire Shortness of Breath Domain score, all at P = .0001, and peak VO₂ at P = .0006, MyoKardia reported.

The company said beyond its bid to have the drug approved for obstructive HCM, based on its mechanism of action it foresees the drug as a potential treatment for nonobstructive HCM and for some patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) who took an investigational agent that targets cardiac myosin over about 7 months showed across-the-board improvements in functional capacity, symptoms, and left ventricular outflow obstruction in a randomized, controlled trial.

Treatment with the oral drug mavacamten (or MYK-461) was well tolerated and showed no untoward safety issues, compared with placebo in the phase 3 EXPLORER-HCM trial, its developer, MyoKardia, announced in a press release. The top-line trial results were made public in advance of a more expansive presentation at a later date.

The company describes mavacamten as an allosteric modulator of cardiac myosin that “reduces cardiac muscle contractility by inhibiting excessive myosin-actin cross-bridge formation that results in hypercontractility, left ventricular hypertrophy and reduced compliance.”

In the EXPLORER-HCM trial, with its 251 patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM, 37% of those randomly assigned to receive once-daily mavacamten and 17% of those given placebo (P =.0005) reached the functional primary endpoint by 30 weeks, the company reported.

The primary endpoint was a composite of either a ≥1.5 mL/kg per min improvement in peak VO2 along with symptomatic improvement or ≥3.0 mL/kg per min improvement without deterioration of symptom status.

Patients taking mavacamten also showed significant improvement in the secondary endpoints of left ventricular outflow tract peak gradient after exercise, NYHA functional class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary scores, and HCM Symptom Questionnaire Shortness of Breath Domain score, all at P = .0001, and peak VO₂ at P = .0006, MyoKardia reported.

The company said beyond its bid to have the drug approved for obstructive HCM, based on its mechanism of action it foresees the drug as a potential treatment for nonobstructive HCM and for some patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many planned randomized trials to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or related drugs for preventing COVID-19 infection have, as of the end of April 2020, failed to include ECG assessment to either exclude people at the highest risk for possibly developing a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia or to flag people who achieve a dangerous QTc interval on treatment, according to an analysis of the posted designs of several dozen studies.

“It is not only inexplicable, but also inexcusable that clinical investigators would dare to include healthy individuals in a clinical trial involving QT-prolonging medications without bothering to screen their electrocardiogram,” commented Sami Viskin, MD, an electrophysiologist at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. “The fact that we needed Dr. Gollob to ring this alarm is, itself, shocking,” he said in an interview.

“ECG screening is a good option to minimize the risk. You don’t eliminate the risk, but you can minimize it,” commented Arthur Wilde, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Both Dr. Viskin and Dr. Wilde agreed with the QTc interval thresholds Dr. Gollob recommended using for excluding or discontinuing study participants.

In his commentary, Dr. Gollob estimated that if 85,000 otherwise healthy adults were randomized to received a drug that can increase the QTc interval, as many as about 3,400 people (4%) in the group could statistically be expected to have an especially high vulnerability to QT prolongation because of genetic variants they might carry that collectively have roughly this prevalence. In some people of African heritage, the prevalence of genetic risk for excessive QTc lengthening can be even higher, approaching about 10%, noted Dr. Wilde.

Dr. Gollob hoped the concerns he raised will prompt the organizers of many of these studies to revise their design, and he said he already knew of one study based in Toronto that recently added an ECG-monitoring strategy in response to the concerns he raised. He expressed optimism that more studies will follow.

“It’s a real issue to have these trials designed without ECG exclusions or monitoring. I’m glad that Dr. Gollob sent this warning, because he is right. ECG monitoring during treatment is important so you can stop the treatment in time,” Dr. Wilde said. Dr. Wilde also noted that many, if not most, of the studies listed on clinicaltrials.gov may not actually launch.

In April, representatives from several cardiology societies coauthored a document of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or azithromycin to treat patients with a diagnosed COVID-19 infection, and highlighted a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater as flagging patients who should no longer receive these drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). For patients who do not yet have COVID-19 disease and the goal from treatment is prevention the potential efficacy of these drugs is reasonable to explore, but “does not exclude the need to minimize risk to research participants, especially when enrolling healthy subjects,” Dr. Gollob said.

Dr. Gollob, Dr. Viskin, and Dr. Wilde had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Many planned randomized trials to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or related drugs for preventing COVID-19 infection have, as of the end of April 2020, failed to include ECG assessment to either exclude people at the highest risk for possibly developing a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia or to flag people who achieve a dangerous QTc interval on treatment, according to an analysis of the posted designs of several dozen studies.

“It is not only inexplicable, but also inexcusable that clinical investigators would dare to include healthy individuals in a clinical trial involving QT-prolonging medications without bothering to screen their electrocardiogram,” commented Sami Viskin, MD, an electrophysiologist at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. “The fact that we needed Dr. Gollob to ring this alarm is, itself, shocking,” he said in an interview.

“ECG screening is a good option to minimize the risk. You don’t eliminate the risk, but you can minimize it,” commented Arthur Wilde, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Both Dr. Viskin and Dr. Wilde agreed with the QTc interval thresholds Dr. Gollob recommended using for excluding or discontinuing study participants.

In his commentary, Dr. Gollob estimated that if 85,000 otherwise healthy adults were randomized to received a drug that can increase the QTc interval, as many as about 3,400 people (4%) in the group could statistically be expected to have an especially high vulnerability to QT prolongation because of genetic variants they might carry that collectively have roughly this prevalence. In some people of African heritage, the prevalence of genetic risk for excessive QTc lengthening can be even higher, approaching about 10%, noted Dr. Wilde.

Dr. Gollob hoped the concerns he raised will prompt the organizers of many of these studies to revise their design, and he said he already knew of one study based in Toronto that recently added an ECG-monitoring strategy in response to the concerns he raised. He expressed optimism that more studies will follow.

“It’s a real issue to have these trials designed without ECG exclusions or monitoring. I’m glad that Dr. Gollob sent this warning, because he is right. ECG monitoring during treatment is important so you can stop the treatment in time,” Dr. Wilde said. Dr. Wilde also noted that many, if not most, of the studies listed on clinicaltrials.gov may not actually launch.

In April, representatives from several cardiology societies coauthored a document of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or azithromycin to treat patients with a diagnosed COVID-19 infection, and highlighted a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater as flagging patients who should no longer receive these drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). For patients who do not yet have COVID-19 disease and the goal from treatment is prevention the potential efficacy of these drugs is reasonable to explore, but “does not exclude the need to minimize risk to research participants, especially when enrolling healthy subjects,” Dr. Gollob said.

Dr. Gollob, Dr. Viskin, and Dr. Wilde had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Many planned randomized trials to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or related drugs for preventing COVID-19 infection have, as of the end of April 2020, failed to include ECG assessment to either exclude people at the highest risk for possibly developing a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia or to flag people who achieve a dangerous QTc interval on treatment, according to an analysis of the posted designs of several dozen studies.

“It is not only inexplicable, but also inexcusable that clinical investigators would dare to include healthy individuals in a clinical trial involving QT-prolonging medications without bothering to screen their electrocardiogram,” commented Sami Viskin, MD, an electrophysiologist at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. “The fact that we needed Dr. Gollob to ring this alarm is, itself, shocking,” he said in an interview.

“ECG screening is a good option to minimize the risk. You don’t eliminate the risk, but you can minimize it,” commented Arthur Wilde, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Both Dr. Viskin and Dr. Wilde agreed with the QTc interval thresholds Dr. Gollob recommended using for excluding or discontinuing study participants.

In his commentary, Dr. Gollob estimated that if 85,000 otherwise healthy adults were randomized to received a drug that can increase the QTc interval, as many as about 3,400 people (4%) in the group could statistically be expected to have an especially high vulnerability to QT prolongation because of genetic variants they might carry that collectively have roughly this prevalence. In some people of African heritage, the prevalence of genetic risk for excessive QTc lengthening can be even higher, approaching about 10%, noted Dr. Wilde.

Dr. Gollob hoped the concerns he raised will prompt the organizers of many of these studies to revise their design, and he said he already knew of one study based in Toronto that recently added an ECG-monitoring strategy in response to the concerns he raised. He expressed optimism that more studies will follow.

“It’s a real issue to have these trials designed without ECG exclusions or monitoring. I’m glad that Dr. Gollob sent this warning, because he is right. ECG monitoring during treatment is important so you can stop the treatment in time,” Dr. Wilde said. Dr. Wilde also noted that many, if not most, of the studies listed on clinicaltrials.gov may not actually launch.

In April, representatives from several cardiology societies coauthored a document of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or azithromycin to treat patients with a diagnosed COVID-19 infection, and highlighted a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater as flagging patients who should no longer receive these drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). For patients who do not yet have COVID-19 disease and the goal from treatment is prevention the potential efficacy of these drugs is reasonable to explore, but “does not exclude the need to minimize risk to research participants, especially when enrolling healthy subjects,” Dr. Gollob said.

Dr. Gollob, Dr. Viskin, and Dr. Wilde had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The younger an ICU patient with severe COVID-19 is, the more obese that patient tends to be, according to a new analysis published in The Lancet.

“By itself, obesity seems to be a sufficient risk factor to start seeing younger people landing in the ICU,” said the study’s lead author, David Kass, MD, a professor of cardiology and medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“In that sense, there’s a simple message: If you’re very, very overweight, don’t think that if you’re 35 you’re that much safer [from severe COVID-19] than your mother or grandparents or others in their 60s or 70s,” Kass told Medscape Medical News.

The findings, which Kass describes as a “2-week snapshot” of 265 patients (58% male) in late March and early April at a handful of university hospitals in the United States reinforces other recent research indicating that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease, particularly among younger patients. In addition, a large British study showed that, after adjusting for comorbidities, obesity was a significant factor associated with in-hospital death in COVID-19.

But this new analysis stands out as the only dataset to date that specifically “asks the question relative to age” of whether severe COVID-19 disease correlates to ICU treatment, he said.

The mean age of his study population of ICU patients was 55, Kass said, “and that was young, not what we were expecting.”

“Even with the first 20 patients, we were already seeing younger people and they definitely were heavier, with plenty of patients with a BMI over 35 kg/m²,” he added. “The relationship was pretty tight, pretty quick.”

“Just don’t make the assumption that any of us are too young to be vulnerable if, in fact, this is an aspect of our bodies,” he said.

Steven Heymsfield, MD, past president and a spokesperson for the Obesity Society, agrees with Kass’ conclusions.

“One thing we’ve had on our minds is that the prototype of a person with this disease is older...but now if we get [a patient] who’s symptomatic and 40 and obese, we shouldn’t assume they have some other disease,” Heymsfield told Medscape Medical News.

“We should think of them as a susceptible population.”

Kass and colleagues agree. “Public messaging to younger adults, reducing the threshold for virus testing in obese individuals, and maintaining greater vigilance for this at-risk population should reduce the prevalence of severe COVID-19 disease [among those with obesity],” they state.

“I think it’s a mental adjustment from a health care standpoint, which might hopefully help target the folks who are at higher risk before they get into trouble,” Kass told Medscape Medical News.
 

Trio of mechanisms explain obesity’s extra COVID-19 risks

Kass and coauthors write that, in analyzing their data, they anticipated similar results to the largest study of 1591 ICU patients from Italy in which only 203 were younger than 51 years. Common comorbidities among those patients included hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes, with similar data reported from China.

When the COVID-19 epidemic accelerated in the United States, older age was also identified as a risk factor. Obesity had not yet been added to this list, Kass noted. But following informal discussions with colleagues in other ICUs around the country, he decided to investigate further as to whether it was an underappreciated risk factor.

Kass and colleagues did a quick evaluation of the link between BMI and age of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs at Johns Hopkins, University of Cincinnati, New York University, University of Washington, Florida Health, and University of Pennsylvania.

The “significant inverse correlation between age and BMI” showed younger ICU patients were more likely to be obese, with no difference by gender.

Median BMI among study participants was 29.3 kg/m², with only a quarter having a BMI lower than 26 kg/m² and another 25% having a BMI higher than 34.7 kg/m².

Kass acknowledged that it wasn’t possible with this simple dataset to account for any other potential confounders, but he told Medscape Medical News that, “while diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension, for example, can occur with obesity, this is generally less so in younger populations as it takes time for the other comorbidities to develop.”

He said several mechanisms could explain why obesity predisposes patients with COVID-19 to severe disease.

For one, obesity places extra pressure on the diaphragm while lying on the back, restricting breathing.

“Morbid obesity itself is sort of proinflammatory,” he continued.

“Here we’ve got a viral infection where the early reports suggest that cytokine storms and immune mishandling of the virus are why it’s so much more severe than other forms of coronavirus we’ve seen before. So if you have someone with an already underlying proinflammatory state, this could be a reason there’s higher risk.”

Additionally, the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptor to which the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 attaches is expressed in higher amounts in adipose tissue than the lungs, Kass noted.

“This could turn into kind of a viral replication depot,” he explained. “You may well be brewing more virus as a component of obesity.”
 

Sensitivity needed in public messaging about risks, but test sooner

With an obesity rate of about 40% in the United States, the results are particularly relevant for Americans, Kass and Heymsfield say, noting that the country’s “obesity belt” runs through the South.

Heymsfield, who wasn’t part of the new analysis, notes that public messaging around severe COVID-19 risks to younger adults with obesity is “tricky,” especially because the virus is “still pretty common in nonobese people.”

Kass agrees, noting, “it’s difficult to turn to 40% of the population and say: ‘You guys have to watch it.’ ”

But the mounting research findings necessitate linking obesity with severe COVID-19 disease and perhaps testing patients in this category for the virus sooner before symptoms become severe.

And of note, since shortness of breath is common among people with obesity regardless of illness, similar COVID-19 symptoms might catch these individuals unaware, pointed out Heymsfield, who is also a professor in the Metabolism and Body Composition Lab at Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

“They may find themselves literally unable to breathe, and the concern would be that they wait much too long to come in” for treatment, he said. Typically, people can deteriorate between day 7 and 10 of the COVID-19 infection.

Individuals with obesity “need to be educated to recognize the serious complications of COVID-19 often appear suddenly, although the virus has sometimes been working its way through the body for a long time,” he concluded.

Kass and Heymsfield have declared no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The younger an ICU patient with severe COVID-19 is, the more obese that patient tends to be, according to a new analysis published in The Lancet.

“By itself, obesity seems to be a sufficient risk factor to start seeing younger people landing in the ICU,” said the study’s lead author, David Kass, MD, a professor of cardiology and medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“In that sense, there’s a simple message: If you’re very, very overweight, don’t think that if you’re 35 you’re that much safer [from severe COVID-19] than your mother or grandparents or others in their 60s or 70s,” Kass told Medscape Medical News.

The findings, which Kass describes as a “2-week snapshot” of 265 patients (58% male) in late March and early April at a handful of university hospitals in the United States reinforces other recent research indicating that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease, particularly among younger patients. In addition, a large British study showed that, after adjusting for comorbidities, obesity was a significant factor associated with in-hospital death in COVID-19.

But this new analysis stands out as the only dataset to date that specifically “asks the question relative to age” of whether severe COVID-19 disease correlates to ICU treatment, he said.

The mean age of his study population of ICU patients was 55, Kass said, “and that was young, not what we were expecting.”

“Even with the first 20 patients, we were already seeing younger people and they definitely were heavier, with plenty of patients with a BMI over 35 kg/m²,” he added. “The relationship was pretty tight, pretty quick.”

“Just don’t make the assumption that any of us are too young to be vulnerable if, in fact, this is an aspect of our bodies,” he said.

Steven Heymsfield, MD, past president and a spokesperson for the Obesity Society, agrees with Kass’ conclusions.

“One thing we’ve had on our minds is that the prototype of a person with this disease is older...but now if we get [a patient] who’s symptomatic and 40 and obese, we shouldn’t assume they have some other disease,” Heymsfield told Medscape Medical News.

“We should think of them as a susceptible population.”

Kass and colleagues agree. “Public messaging to younger adults, reducing the threshold for virus testing in obese individuals, and maintaining greater vigilance for this at-risk population should reduce the prevalence of severe COVID-19 disease [among those with obesity],” they state.

“I think it’s a mental adjustment from a health care standpoint, which might hopefully help target the folks who are at higher risk before they get into trouble,” Kass told Medscape Medical News.
 

Trio of mechanisms explain obesity’s extra COVID-19 risks

Kass and coauthors write that, in analyzing their data, they anticipated similar results to the largest study of 1591 ICU patients from Italy in which only 203 were younger than 51 years. Common comorbidities among those patients included hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes, with similar data reported from China.

When the COVID-19 epidemic accelerated in the United States, older age was also identified as a risk factor. Obesity had not yet been added to this list, Kass noted. But following informal discussions with colleagues in other ICUs around the country, he decided to investigate further as to whether it was an underappreciated risk factor.

Kass and colleagues did a quick evaluation of the link between BMI and age of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs at Johns Hopkins, University of Cincinnati, New York University, University of Washington, Florida Health, and University of Pennsylvania.

The “significant inverse correlation between age and BMI” showed younger ICU patients were more likely to be obese, with no difference by gender.

Median BMI among study participants was 29.3 kg/m², with only a quarter having a BMI lower than 26 kg/m² and another 25% having a BMI higher than 34.7 kg/m².

Kass acknowledged that it wasn’t possible with this simple dataset to account for any other potential confounders, but he told Medscape Medical News that, “while diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension, for example, can occur with obesity, this is generally less so in younger populations as it takes time for the other comorbidities to develop.”

He said several mechanisms could explain why obesity predisposes patients with COVID-19 to severe disease.

For one, obesity places extra pressure on the diaphragm while lying on the back, restricting breathing.

“Morbid obesity itself is sort of proinflammatory,” he continued.

“Here we’ve got a viral infection where the early reports suggest that cytokine storms and immune mishandling of the virus are why it’s so much more severe than other forms of coronavirus we’ve seen before. So if you have someone with an already underlying proinflammatory state, this could be a reason there’s higher risk.”

Additionally, the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptor to which the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 attaches is expressed in higher amounts in adipose tissue than the lungs, Kass noted.

“This could turn into kind of a viral replication depot,” he explained. “You may well be brewing more virus as a component of obesity.”
 

Sensitivity needed in public messaging about risks, but test sooner

With an obesity rate of about 40% in the United States, the results are particularly relevant for Americans, Kass and Heymsfield say, noting that the country’s “obesity belt” runs through the South.

Heymsfield, who wasn’t part of the new analysis, notes that public messaging around severe COVID-19 risks to younger adults with obesity is “tricky,” especially because the virus is “still pretty common in nonobese people.”

Kass agrees, noting, “it’s difficult to turn to 40% of the population and say: ‘You guys have to watch it.’ ”

But the mounting research findings necessitate linking obesity with severe COVID-19 disease and perhaps testing patients in this category for the virus sooner before symptoms become severe.

And of note, since shortness of breath is common among people with obesity regardless of illness, similar COVID-19 symptoms might catch these individuals unaware, pointed out Heymsfield, who is also a professor in the Metabolism and Body Composition Lab at Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

“They may find themselves literally unable to breathe, and the concern would be that they wait much too long to come in” for treatment, he said. Typically, people can deteriorate between day 7 and 10 of the COVID-19 infection.

Individuals with obesity “need to be educated to recognize the serious complications of COVID-19 often appear suddenly, although the virus has sometimes been working its way through the body for a long time,” he concluded.

Kass and Heymsfield have declared no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The younger an ICU patient with severe COVID-19 is, the more obese that patient tends to be, according to a new analysis published in The Lancet.

“By itself, obesity seems to be a sufficient risk factor to start seeing younger people landing in the ICU,” said the study’s lead author, David Kass, MD, a professor of cardiology and medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“In that sense, there’s a simple message: If you’re very, very overweight, don’t think that if you’re 35 you’re that much safer [from severe COVID-19] than your mother or grandparents or others in their 60s or 70s,” Kass told Medscape Medical News.

The findings, which Kass describes as a “2-week snapshot” of 265 patients (58% male) in late March and early April at a handful of university hospitals in the United States reinforces other recent research indicating that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease, particularly among younger patients. In addition, a large British study showed that, after adjusting for comorbidities, obesity was a significant factor associated with in-hospital death in COVID-19.

But this new analysis stands out as the only dataset to date that specifically “asks the question relative to age” of whether severe COVID-19 disease correlates to ICU treatment, he said.

The mean age of his study population of ICU patients was 55, Kass said, “and that was young, not what we were expecting.”

“Even with the first 20 patients, we were already seeing younger people and they definitely were heavier, with plenty of patients with a BMI over 35 kg/m²,” he added. “The relationship was pretty tight, pretty quick.”

“Just don’t make the assumption that any of us are too young to be vulnerable if, in fact, this is an aspect of our bodies,” he said.

Steven Heymsfield, MD, past president and a spokesperson for the Obesity Society, agrees with Kass’ conclusions.

“One thing we’ve had on our minds is that the prototype of a person with this disease is older...but now if we get [a patient] who’s symptomatic and 40 and obese, we shouldn’t assume they have some other disease,” Heymsfield told Medscape Medical News.

“We should think of them as a susceptible population.”

Kass and colleagues agree. “Public messaging to younger adults, reducing the threshold for virus testing in obese individuals, and maintaining greater vigilance for this at-risk population should reduce the prevalence of severe COVID-19 disease [among those with obesity],” they state.

“I think it’s a mental adjustment from a health care standpoint, which might hopefully help target the folks who are at higher risk before they get into trouble,” Kass told Medscape Medical News.
 

Trio of mechanisms explain obesity’s extra COVID-19 risks

Kass and coauthors write that, in analyzing their data, they anticipated similar results to the largest study of 1591 ICU patients from Italy in which only 203 were younger than 51 years. Common comorbidities among those patients included hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes, with similar data reported from China.

When the COVID-19 epidemic accelerated in the United States, older age was also identified as a risk factor. Obesity had not yet been added to this list, Kass noted. But following informal discussions with colleagues in other ICUs around the country, he decided to investigate further as to whether it was an underappreciated risk factor.

Kass and colleagues did a quick evaluation of the link between BMI and age of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs at Johns Hopkins, University of Cincinnati, New York University, University of Washington, Florida Health, and University of Pennsylvania.

The “significant inverse correlation between age and BMI” showed younger ICU patients were more likely to be obese, with no difference by gender.

Median BMI among study participants was 29.3 kg/m², with only a quarter having a BMI lower than 26 kg/m² and another 25% having a BMI higher than 34.7 kg/m².

Kass acknowledged that it wasn’t possible with this simple dataset to account for any other potential confounders, but he told Medscape Medical News that, “while diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension, for example, can occur with obesity, this is generally less so in younger populations as it takes time for the other comorbidities to develop.”

He said several mechanisms could explain why obesity predisposes patients with COVID-19 to severe disease.

For one, obesity places extra pressure on the diaphragm while lying on the back, restricting breathing.

“Morbid obesity itself is sort of proinflammatory,” he continued.

“Here we’ve got a viral infection where the early reports suggest that cytokine storms and immune mishandling of the virus are why it’s so much more severe than other forms of coronavirus we’ve seen before. So if you have someone with an already underlying proinflammatory state, this could be a reason there’s higher risk.”

Additionally, the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptor to which the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 attaches is expressed in higher amounts in adipose tissue than the lungs, Kass noted.

“This could turn into kind of a viral replication depot,” he explained. “You may well be brewing more virus as a component of obesity.”
 

Sensitivity needed in public messaging about risks, but test sooner

With an obesity rate of about 40% in the United States, the results are particularly relevant for Americans, Kass and Heymsfield say, noting that the country’s “obesity belt” runs through the South.

Heymsfield, who wasn’t part of the new analysis, notes that public messaging around severe COVID-19 risks to younger adults with obesity is “tricky,” especially because the virus is “still pretty common in nonobese people.”

Kass agrees, noting, “it’s difficult to turn to 40% of the population and say: ‘You guys have to watch it.’ ”

But the mounting research findings necessitate linking obesity with severe COVID-19 disease and perhaps testing patients in this category for the virus sooner before symptoms become severe.

And of note, since shortness of breath is common among people with obesity regardless of illness, similar COVID-19 symptoms might catch these individuals unaware, pointed out Heymsfield, who is also a professor in the Metabolism and Body Composition Lab at Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

“They may find themselves literally unable to breathe, and the concern would be that they wait much too long to come in” for treatment, he said. Typically, people can deteriorate between day 7 and 10 of the COVID-19 infection.

Individuals with obesity “need to be educated to recognize the serious complications of COVID-19 often appear suddenly, although the virus has sometimes been working its way through the body for a long time,” he concluded.

Kass and Heymsfield have declared no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

The implantable defibrillator with subcutaneous leads, designed in part to minimize the risk for potentially serious lead-related complications, has reached a milestone by turning in a “noninferior” performance when it was compared with transvenous-lead devices in a first-of-its-kind head-to-head study.

Patients implanted with the subcutaneous-lead S-ICD (Boston Scientific) defibrillator showed a 4-year risk for inappropriate shocks or device-related complications similar to that seen with standard transvenous-lead implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in a randomized comparison.

At the same time, the S-ICD did its job by showing a highly significant three-fourths reduction in risk for lead-related complications, compared with ICDs with standard leads, in the trial with more than 800 patients, called PRAETORIAN.

The study population represented a mix of patients seen in “real-world” practice who have an ICD indication, of whom about two-thirds had ischemic cardiomyopathy, said Reinoud Knops, MD, PhD, Academic Medical Center, Hilversum, the Netherlands. About 80% received the devices for primary prevention.

Knops, the trial’s principal investigator, presented the results online May 8 as one of the Heart Rhythm Society 2020 Scientific Sessions virtual presentations.

“I think the PRAETORIAN trial has really shown now, in a conventional ICD population – the real-world patients that we treat with ICD therapy, the single-chamber ICD cohort – that the S-ICD is a really good alternative option,” he said to reporters during a media briefing.

“The main conclusion is that the S-ICD should be considered in all patients who need an ICD who do not have a pacing indication,” Knops said.

This latter part is critical, because the S-ICD does not provide pacing therapy, including antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and the trial did not enter patients considered likely to benefit from it. For example, it excluded anyone with bradycardia or treatment-refractory monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and patients considered appropriate for CRT.

In fact, there are a lot reasons clinicians might prefer a transvenous-lead ICD over the S-ICD, observed Anne B. Curtis, MD, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, who is not associated with PRAETORIAN.

A transvenous-lead system might be preferred in older patients, those with heart failure, and those with a lot of comorbidities. “A lot of these patients already have cardiomyopathies, so they’re more likely to develop atrial fibrillation or a need for CRT,” conditions that might make a transvenous-lead system the better choice, Curtis told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“For a lot of patients, you’re always thinking that you may have a need for that kind of therapy.”

In contrast, younger patients who perhaps have survived cardiac arrest and probably don’t have heart failure, and so may be less likely to benefit from pacing therapy, Curtis said, “are the kind of patient who you would probably lean very strongly toward for an S-ICD rather than a transvenous ICD.”

Remaining patients, those who might be considered candidates for either kind of device, are actually “a fairly limited subset,” she said.

The trial randomized 849 patients in Europe and the United States, from March 2011 to January 2017, who had a class I or IIa indication for an ICD but no bradycardia or need for CRT or ATP, to be implanted with an S-ICD or a transvenous-lead ICD.

The rates of the primary end point, a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks at a median follow-up of 4 years, were comparable, at 15.1% in the S-ICD group and 15.7% for those with transvenous-lead ICDs.

The incidence of device-related complications numerically favored the S-ICD group, and the incidence of inappropriate shocks numerically favored the transvenous-lead group, but neither difference reached significance.

Knops said the PRAETORIAN researchers are seeking addition funding to extend the follow-up to 8 years. “We will get more insight into the durability of the S-ICD when we follow these patients longer,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The investigator-initiated trial received support from Boston Scientific. Knops discloses receiving consultancy fees and research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Cairdac, and holding stock options from AtaCor Medical.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The implantable defibrillator with subcutaneous leads, designed in part to minimize the risk for potentially serious lead-related complications, has reached a milestone by turning in a “noninferior” performance when it was compared with transvenous-lead devices in a first-of-its-kind head-to-head study.

Patients implanted with the subcutaneous-lead S-ICD (Boston Scientific) defibrillator showed a 4-year risk for inappropriate shocks or device-related complications similar to that seen with standard transvenous-lead implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in a randomized comparison.

At the same time, the S-ICD did its job by showing a highly significant three-fourths reduction in risk for lead-related complications, compared with ICDs with standard leads, in the trial with more than 800 patients, called PRAETORIAN.

The study population represented a mix of patients seen in “real-world” practice who have an ICD indication, of whom about two-thirds had ischemic cardiomyopathy, said Reinoud Knops, MD, PhD, Academic Medical Center, Hilversum, the Netherlands. About 80% received the devices for primary prevention.

Knops, the trial’s principal investigator, presented the results online May 8 as one of the Heart Rhythm Society 2020 Scientific Sessions virtual presentations.

“I think the PRAETORIAN trial has really shown now, in a conventional ICD population – the real-world patients that we treat with ICD therapy, the single-chamber ICD cohort – that the S-ICD is a really good alternative option,” he said to reporters during a media briefing.

“The main conclusion is that the S-ICD should be considered in all patients who need an ICD who do not have a pacing indication,” Knops said.

This latter part is critical, because the S-ICD does not provide pacing therapy, including antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and the trial did not enter patients considered likely to benefit from it. For example, it excluded anyone with bradycardia or treatment-refractory monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and patients considered appropriate for CRT.

In fact, there are a lot reasons clinicians might prefer a transvenous-lead ICD over the S-ICD, observed Anne B. Curtis, MD, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, who is not associated with PRAETORIAN.

A transvenous-lead system might be preferred in older patients, those with heart failure, and those with a lot of comorbidities. “A lot of these patients already have cardiomyopathies, so they’re more likely to develop atrial fibrillation or a need for CRT,” conditions that might make a transvenous-lead system the better choice, Curtis told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“For a lot of patients, you’re always thinking that you may have a need for that kind of therapy.”

In contrast, younger patients who perhaps have survived cardiac arrest and probably don’t have heart failure, and so may be less likely to benefit from pacing therapy, Curtis said, “are the kind of patient who you would probably lean very strongly toward for an S-ICD rather than a transvenous ICD.”

Remaining patients, those who might be considered candidates for either kind of device, are actually “a fairly limited subset,” she said.

The trial randomized 849 patients in Europe and the United States, from March 2011 to January 2017, who had a class I or IIa indication for an ICD but no bradycardia or need for CRT or ATP, to be implanted with an S-ICD or a transvenous-lead ICD.

The rates of the primary end point, a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks at a median follow-up of 4 years, were comparable, at 15.1% in the S-ICD group and 15.7% for those with transvenous-lead ICDs.

The incidence of device-related complications numerically favored the S-ICD group, and the incidence of inappropriate shocks numerically favored the transvenous-lead group, but neither difference reached significance.

Knops said the PRAETORIAN researchers are seeking addition funding to extend the follow-up to 8 years. “We will get more insight into the durability of the S-ICD when we follow these patients longer,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The investigator-initiated trial received support from Boston Scientific. Knops discloses receiving consultancy fees and research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Cairdac, and holding stock options from AtaCor Medical.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The implantable defibrillator with subcutaneous leads, designed in part to minimize the risk for potentially serious lead-related complications, has reached a milestone by turning in a “noninferior” performance when it was compared with transvenous-lead devices in a first-of-its-kind head-to-head study.

Patients implanted with the subcutaneous-lead S-ICD (Boston Scientific) defibrillator showed a 4-year risk for inappropriate shocks or device-related complications similar to that seen with standard transvenous-lead implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in a randomized comparison.

At the same time, the S-ICD did its job by showing a highly significant three-fourths reduction in risk for lead-related complications, compared with ICDs with standard leads, in the trial with more than 800 patients, called PRAETORIAN.

The study population represented a mix of patients seen in “real-world” practice who have an ICD indication, of whom about two-thirds had ischemic cardiomyopathy, said Reinoud Knops, MD, PhD, Academic Medical Center, Hilversum, the Netherlands. About 80% received the devices for primary prevention.

Knops, the trial’s principal investigator, presented the results online May 8 as one of the Heart Rhythm Society 2020 Scientific Sessions virtual presentations.

“I think the PRAETORIAN trial has really shown now, in a conventional ICD population – the real-world patients that we treat with ICD therapy, the single-chamber ICD cohort – that the S-ICD is a really good alternative option,” he said to reporters during a media briefing.

“The main conclusion is that the S-ICD should be considered in all patients who need an ICD who do not have a pacing indication,” Knops said.

This latter part is critical, because the S-ICD does not provide pacing therapy, including antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and the trial did not enter patients considered likely to benefit from it. For example, it excluded anyone with bradycardia or treatment-refractory monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and patients considered appropriate for CRT.

In fact, there are a lot reasons clinicians might prefer a transvenous-lead ICD over the S-ICD, observed Anne B. Curtis, MD, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, who is not associated with PRAETORIAN.

A transvenous-lead system might be preferred in older patients, those with heart failure, and those with a lot of comorbidities. “A lot of these patients already have cardiomyopathies, so they’re more likely to develop atrial fibrillation or a need for CRT,” conditions that might make a transvenous-lead system the better choice, Curtis told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“For a lot of patients, you’re always thinking that you may have a need for that kind of therapy.”

In contrast, younger patients who perhaps have survived cardiac arrest and probably don’t have heart failure, and so may be less likely to benefit from pacing therapy, Curtis said, “are the kind of patient who you would probably lean very strongly toward for an S-ICD rather than a transvenous ICD.”

Remaining patients, those who might be considered candidates for either kind of device, are actually “a fairly limited subset,” she said.

The trial randomized 849 patients in Europe and the United States, from March 2011 to January 2017, who had a class I or IIa indication for an ICD but no bradycardia or need for CRT or ATP, to be implanted with an S-ICD or a transvenous-lead ICD.

The rates of the primary end point, a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks at a median follow-up of 4 years, were comparable, at 15.1% in the S-ICD group and 15.7% for those with transvenous-lead ICDs.

The incidence of device-related complications numerically favored the S-ICD group, and the incidence of inappropriate shocks numerically favored the transvenous-lead group, but neither difference reached significance.

Knops said the PRAETORIAN researchers are seeking addition funding to extend the follow-up to 8 years. “We will get more insight into the durability of the S-ICD when we follow these patients longer,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The investigator-initiated trial received support from Boston Scientific. Knops discloses receiving consultancy fees and research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Cairdac, and holding stock options from AtaCor Medical.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of systemic anticoagulation may improve the chance of survival in patients hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.

Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.

The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.

Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.

“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.

In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.

Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.

In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.

“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”

For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.

Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.

Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.

Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).

In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).

The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.

Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).

In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.

Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.

“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”

“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”

At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.

Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.

In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”

Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.

The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.

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

Use of systemic anticoagulation may improve the chance of survival in patients hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.

Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.

The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.

Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.

“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.

In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.

Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.

In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.

“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”

For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.

Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.

Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.

Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).

In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).

The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.

Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).

In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.

Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.

“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”

“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”

At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.

Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.

In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”

Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.

The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.

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

Use of systemic anticoagulation may improve the chance of survival in patients hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.

Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.

The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.

Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.

“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.

In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.

Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.

In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.

“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”

For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.

Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.

Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.

Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).

In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).

The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.

Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).

In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.

Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.

“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”

“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”

At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.

Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.

In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”

Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.

The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.

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

In patients with stable chest pain, the burden of low-attenuation noncalcified plaque on coronary CT angiography is a better predictor of future myocardial infarction risk than a cardiovascular risk score, an Agatson coronary artery calcium score, or angiographic severity of coronary stenoses, Michelle C. Williams, MBChB, PhD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

These findings from a post hoc analysis of the large multicenter SCOT-HEART trial challenge current concepts regarding the supposed superiority of the classic tools for MI risk prediction, noted Dr. Williams, a senior clinical research fellow at the University of Edinburgh.

Indeed, it’s likely that the current established predictors of risk – that is, coronary artery calcium, severity of stenosis, and cardiovascular risk score – are associated with clinical events only indirectly through their correlation with low-attenuated calcified plaque burden, which is the real driver of future MI, she continued.

Histologically, low-attenuated noncalcified plaque on coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is defined by a thin fibrous cap, a large, inflamed, lipid-rich necrotic core, and microcalcification. Previously, Dr. Williams and her coinvestigators demonstrated that visual identification of this unstable plaque subtype is of benefit in predicting future risk of MI (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jan 29;73[3]:291-301).

But visual identification of plaque subtypes is a crude and laborious process. In her current study, she and her coworkers have taken things a giant step further, using commercially available CCTA software to semiautomatically quantify the burden of this highest-risk plaque subtype as well as all the other subtypes.

This post hoc analysis of the previously reported main SCOT-HEART trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 6;379[10]:924-933) included 1,769 patients with stable chest pain randomized to standard care with or without CCTA guidance and followed for a median of 4.7 years, during which 41 patients had a fatal or nonfatal MI. At enrollment, 37% of participants had normal coronary arteries, 38% had nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), and the remainder had obstructive CAD.

In a multivariate analysis, low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden was the strongest predictor of future MI, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.6 per doubling. This metric was strongly correlated with coronary artery calcium score, underscoring the limited value of doing noncontrast CT in order to determine a coronary artery calcium score when CCTA is performed.

Low-attenuation plaque burden correlated very strongly with angiographic severity of stenosis, and only weakly with cardiovascular risk score, perhaps explaining the poor prognostic performance of cardiovascular risk scores in SCOT-HEART and other studies, according to Dr. Williams.

Patients with a low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden greater than 4% in their coronary tree were 4.7 times more likely to have a subsequent MI than were those with a lesser burden. The predictive power was even greater in patients with nonobstructive CAD, where a low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden in excess of 4% conferred a 6.6-fold greater likelihood of fatal or nonfatal MI, she observed.

Two things need to happen before measurement of low-attenuation noncalcified plaque via CCTA to predict MI risk is ready to be adopted in routine clinical practice, according to Dr. Williams. These SCOT-HEART results need to be validated in other cohorts, a process now underway in the SCOT-HEART 2 trial and other studies. Also, improved software incorporating machine learning is needed in order to speed up the semiautomated analysis of plaque subtypes, which now takes 20-30 minutes.

Dr. Williams reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, funded by the National Health Service.

In conjunction with her virtual presentation at ACC 2020, the SCOT-HEART study results were published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044720. [Epub ahead of print]).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Williams MC et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-06.

In patients with stable chest pain, the burden of low-attenuation noncalcified plaque on coronary CT angiography is a better predictor of future myocardial infarction risk than a cardiovascular risk score, an Agatson coronary artery calcium score, or angiographic severity of coronary stenoses, Michelle C. Williams, MBChB, PhD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

These findings from a post hoc analysis of the large multicenter SCOT-HEART trial challenge current concepts regarding the supposed superiority of the classic tools for MI risk prediction, noted Dr. Williams, a senior clinical research fellow at the University of Edinburgh.

Indeed, it’s likely that the current established predictors of risk – that is, coronary artery calcium, severity of stenosis, and cardiovascular risk score – are associated with clinical events only indirectly through their correlation with low-attenuated calcified plaque burden, which is the real driver of future MI, she continued.

Histologically, low-attenuated noncalcified plaque on coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is defined by a thin fibrous cap, a large, inflamed, lipid-rich necrotic core, and microcalcification. Previously, Dr. Williams and her coinvestigators demonstrated that visual identification of this unstable plaque subtype is of benefit in predicting future risk of MI (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jan 29;73[3]:291-301).

But visual identification of plaque subtypes is a crude and laborious process. In her current study, she and her coworkers have taken things a giant step further, using commercially available CCTA software to semiautomatically quantify the burden of this highest-risk plaque subtype as well as all the other subtypes.

This post hoc analysis of the previously reported main SCOT-HEART trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 6;379[10]:924-933) included 1,769 patients with stable chest pain randomized to standard care with or without CCTA guidance and followed for a median of 4.7 years, during which 41 patients had a fatal or nonfatal MI. At enrollment, 37% of participants had normal coronary arteries, 38% had nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), and the remainder had obstructive CAD.

In a multivariate analysis, low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden was the strongest predictor of future MI, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.6 per doubling. This metric was strongly correlated with coronary artery calcium score, underscoring the limited value of doing noncontrast CT in order to determine a coronary artery calcium score when CCTA is performed.

Low-attenuation plaque burden correlated very strongly with angiographic severity of stenosis, and only weakly with cardiovascular risk score, perhaps explaining the poor prognostic performance of cardiovascular risk scores in SCOT-HEART and other studies, according to Dr. Williams.

Patients with a low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden greater than 4% in their coronary tree were 4.7 times more likely to have a subsequent MI than were those with a lesser burden. The predictive power was even greater in patients with nonobstructive CAD, where a low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden in excess of 4% conferred a 6.6-fold greater likelihood of fatal or nonfatal MI, she observed.

Two things need to happen before measurement of low-attenuation noncalcified plaque via CCTA to predict MI risk is ready to be adopted in routine clinical practice, according to Dr. Williams. These SCOT-HEART results need to be validated in other cohorts, a process now underway in the SCOT-HEART 2 trial and other studies. Also, improved software incorporating machine learning is needed in order to speed up the semiautomated analysis of plaque subtypes, which now takes 20-30 minutes.

Dr. Williams reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, funded by the National Health Service.

In conjunction with her virtual presentation at ACC 2020, the SCOT-HEART study results were published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044720. [Epub ahead of print]).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Williams MC et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-06.

In patients with stable chest pain, the burden of low-attenuation noncalcified plaque on coronary CT angiography is a better predictor of future myocardial infarction risk than a cardiovascular risk score, an Agatson coronary artery calcium score, or angiographic severity of coronary stenoses, Michelle C. Williams, MBChB, PhD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

These findings from a post hoc analysis of the large multicenter SCOT-HEART trial challenge current concepts regarding the supposed superiority of the classic tools for MI risk prediction, noted Dr. Williams, a senior clinical research fellow at the University of Edinburgh.

Indeed, it’s likely that the current established predictors of risk – that is, coronary artery calcium, severity of stenosis, and cardiovascular risk score – are associated with clinical events only indirectly through their correlation with low-attenuated calcified plaque burden, which is the real driver of future MI, she continued.

Histologically, low-attenuated noncalcified plaque on coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is defined by a thin fibrous cap, a large, inflamed, lipid-rich necrotic core, and microcalcification. Previously, Dr. Williams and her coinvestigators demonstrated that visual identification of this unstable plaque subtype is of benefit in predicting future risk of MI (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jan 29;73[3]:291-301).

But visual identification of plaque subtypes is a crude and laborious process. In her current study, she and her coworkers have taken things a giant step further, using commercially available CCTA software to semiautomatically quantify the burden of this highest-risk plaque subtype as well as all the other subtypes.

This post hoc analysis of the previously reported main SCOT-HEART trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 6;379[10]:924-933) included 1,769 patients with stable chest pain randomized to standard care with or without CCTA guidance and followed for a median of 4.7 years, during which 41 patients had a fatal or nonfatal MI. At enrollment, 37% of participants had normal coronary arteries, 38% had nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), and the remainder had obstructive CAD.

In a multivariate analysis, low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden was the strongest predictor of future MI, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.6 per doubling. This metric was strongly correlated with coronary artery calcium score, underscoring the limited value of doing noncontrast CT in order to determine a coronary artery calcium score when CCTA is performed.

Low-attenuation plaque burden correlated very strongly with angiographic severity of stenosis, and only weakly with cardiovascular risk score, perhaps explaining the poor prognostic performance of cardiovascular risk scores in SCOT-HEART and other studies, according to Dr. Williams.

Patients with a low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden greater than 4% in their coronary tree were 4.7 times more likely to have a subsequent MI than were those with a lesser burden. The predictive power was even greater in patients with nonobstructive CAD, where a low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden in excess of 4% conferred a 6.6-fold greater likelihood of fatal or nonfatal MI, she observed.

Two things need to happen before measurement of low-attenuation noncalcified plaque via CCTA to predict MI risk is ready to be adopted in routine clinical practice, according to Dr. Williams. These SCOT-HEART results need to be validated in other cohorts, a process now underway in the SCOT-HEART 2 trial and other studies. Also, improved software incorporating machine learning is needed in order to speed up the semiautomated analysis of plaque subtypes, which now takes 20-30 minutes.

Dr. Williams reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, funded by the National Health Service.

In conjunction with her virtual presentation at ACC 2020, the SCOT-HEART study results were published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044720. [Epub ahead of print]).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Williams MC et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-06.