Emergency Medicine

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, it now seems like the norm is that large medical conferences are being canceled.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) canceled its 2020 annual meeting, which was scheduled for late April. The cancellation disappointed many, because we will miss out on the camaraderie and professional invigoration that comes from gathering with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals from across the United States and around the world. After the APA’s decision was announced, the White House released guidelines advising Americans to avoid social gatherings of 10 or more people.

On a practical level, many psychiatrists will not be able to earn up to 35 continuing medical education credits (CME) from attending the meeting and fulfilling the administrative requirements to obtain a CME certificate. Not only have meetings been canceled, but events many other clinicians count on for CME, such as journal clubs and department grand rounds, have been canceled until they can be moved to a virtual space.

The CME requirements for state medical licenses vary widely. On average, most states require at least 25 credits per year or 60 to 100 credits every 2 years, and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology requires diplomates to complete an average of 30 specialty and/or subspecialty CME credits per year, averaged over 3 years. Usually, annual medical conferences would be a great way to get an infusion of CME credits, brush up on cutting-edge treatments, and review the basics.

On top of everything else we have to worry about with COVID-19, getting enough CME credits has been added to the list for many psychiatrists and mental health clinicians. A public health emergency like COVID-19 is a time for flexibility and thoughtful planning. As our schedules and daily lives are disrupted, it’s important to find relief in routine activities that are not affected by social distancing and fears of isolation and quarantine. A routine activity to lean into might include learning or practicing a skill that we enjoy, such as psychiatry (hopefully!) and the practice of medicine. The CME could be focused on a psychiatric topic or perhaps learning about the specifics of COVID-19 or brushing up on medical knowledge that might be a bit rusty after many years of practicing solely psychiatry.

As you start to gather CME credits online, it’s helpful to sign up for a service that stores your CME credits and helps you keep track of the number. When it comes time to renew your medical license or apply for maintenance of certification (MOC), who wants to be the person searching through their email for PDFs of CME certificates or taking pictures or scanning paper certificates? The APA has a section under education and MOC to track certificates earned by watching online modules from its “Learning Center.” The website also allows users to upload external certificates. The American Medical Association offers a similar service on its “Ed Hub,” in which users can log in to watch, listen, or download articles to earn CME credits after finishing the associated quiz. Medscape, in the CME and Education section, also offers an easy-to-use CME dashboard, in which clinicians can filter by their specialty, topic, duration of learning activity – ranging from 0.25 to 3 CME credits. Clinicians also can track their credits as they complete activities.

If you’re someone who’s having trouble focusing on anything besides COVID-19, there are COVID-19-specific CME activities that are available and can help psychiatrists feel comfortable talking with patients, family, and their institutions about the risks of COVID-19. The AMA Ed Hub has a featured 8-credit CME course about the novel coronavirus with updates about diagnosis, treatment, and public health strategies.

For the psychiatrists who may have procrastinated in-depth learning about the opioid crisis or getting their buprenorphine waivers, AMA Ed Hub offers a 42-credit course about opioids and pain management covering guidelines, research, and treatment.

For fun refreshers on general medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine offers up to 20 online CME exams based on quizzes from interesting clinical cases ranging from “regular” medicine to rare clinical scenarios. The APA Learning Center has an easy-to-use search function allowing users to select content from more than 200 modules covering a wide range of general topics; from reviewing recent treatment guidelines to specialized psychiatric topics such as geriatric bipolar disorder. A psychiatrist who has been quickly pushed to telepsychiatry because of the current pandemic could use the APA Learning Center to find educational modules about risk management in telepsychiatry or learn the special considerations of using telepsychiatry to treat patients with serious mental illness.

Using podcasts to earn CME is becoming increasingly common, with such as outlets as JAMA Networks offering podcasts in many specialties in which subscribers can take a quiz through the JAMA app and obtain CME credits.

As our clinical boundaries as psychiatrists are pushed by an ever-changing public health situation, now is the time to earn CME focused on new topics to meet the demands placed on health care workers at the front lines of clinical care.

If the COVID-19 pandemic reaches the number of cases predicted by public health officials, our health care system is going to be under extreme stress. All specialties face the threat of losing part of their working capacity as clinicians get sick with the virus, or as they stay home because of exposure or to take care of a loved one. It’s a time for flexibility but also to flex our muscles as health care professionals. CME can be a way to empower ourselves by staying current on the cutting edge of our specialties, but also brushing up on the medicine that we may be asked to practice in a time of great need.
 

Dr. Posada is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va. She also is associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. Dr. Posada has no disclosures.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, it now seems like the norm is that large medical conferences are being canceled.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) canceled its 2020 annual meeting, which was scheduled for late April. The cancellation disappointed many, because we will miss out on the camaraderie and professional invigoration that comes from gathering with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals from across the United States and around the world. After the APA’s decision was announced, the White House released guidelines advising Americans to avoid social gatherings of 10 or more people.

On a practical level, many psychiatrists will not be able to earn up to 35 continuing medical education credits (CME) from attending the meeting and fulfilling the administrative requirements to obtain a CME certificate. Not only have meetings been canceled, but events many other clinicians count on for CME, such as journal clubs and department grand rounds, have been canceled until they can be moved to a virtual space.

The CME requirements for state medical licenses vary widely. On average, most states require at least 25 credits per year or 60 to 100 credits every 2 years, and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology requires diplomates to complete an average of 30 specialty and/or subspecialty CME credits per year, averaged over 3 years. Usually, annual medical conferences would be a great way to get an infusion of CME credits, brush up on cutting-edge treatments, and review the basics.

On top of everything else we have to worry about with COVID-19, getting enough CME credits has been added to the list for many psychiatrists and mental health clinicians. A public health emergency like COVID-19 is a time for flexibility and thoughtful planning. As our schedules and daily lives are disrupted, it’s important to find relief in routine activities that are not affected by social distancing and fears of isolation and quarantine. A routine activity to lean into might include learning or practicing a skill that we enjoy, such as psychiatry (hopefully!) and the practice of medicine. The CME could be focused on a psychiatric topic or perhaps learning about the specifics of COVID-19 or brushing up on medical knowledge that might be a bit rusty after many years of practicing solely psychiatry.

As you start to gather CME credits online, it’s helpful to sign up for a service that stores your CME credits and helps you keep track of the number. When it comes time to renew your medical license or apply for maintenance of certification (MOC), who wants to be the person searching through their email for PDFs of CME certificates or taking pictures or scanning paper certificates? The APA has a section under education and MOC to track certificates earned by watching online modules from its “Learning Center.” The website also allows users to upload external certificates. The American Medical Association offers a similar service on its “Ed Hub,” in which users can log in to watch, listen, or download articles to earn CME credits after finishing the associated quiz. Medscape, in the CME and Education section, also offers an easy-to-use CME dashboard, in which clinicians can filter by their specialty, topic, duration of learning activity – ranging from 0.25 to 3 CME credits. Clinicians also can track their credits as they complete activities.

If you’re someone who’s having trouble focusing on anything besides COVID-19, there are COVID-19-specific CME activities that are available and can help psychiatrists feel comfortable talking with patients, family, and their institutions about the risks of COVID-19. The AMA Ed Hub has a featured 8-credit CME course about the novel coronavirus with updates about diagnosis, treatment, and public health strategies.

For the psychiatrists who may have procrastinated in-depth learning about the opioid crisis or getting their buprenorphine waivers, AMA Ed Hub offers a 42-credit course about opioids and pain management covering guidelines, research, and treatment.

For fun refreshers on general medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine offers up to 20 online CME exams based on quizzes from interesting clinical cases ranging from “regular” medicine to rare clinical scenarios. The APA Learning Center has an easy-to-use search function allowing users to select content from more than 200 modules covering a wide range of general topics; from reviewing recent treatment guidelines to specialized psychiatric topics such as geriatric bipolar disorder. A psychiatrist who has been quickly pushed to telepsychiatry because of the current pandemic could use the APA Learning Center to find educational modules about risk management in telepsychiatry or learn the special considerations of using telepsychiatry to treat patients with serious mental illness.

Using podcasts to earn CME is becoming increasingly common, with such as outlets as JAMA Networks offering podcasts in many specialties in which subscribers can take a quiz through the JAMA app and obtain CME credits.

As our clinical boundaries as psychiatrists are pushed by an ever-changing public health situation, now is the time to earn CME focused on new topics to meet the demands placed on health care workers at the front lines of clinical care.

If the COVID-19 pandemic reaches the number of cases predicted by public health officials, our health care system is going to be under extreme stress. All specialties face the threat of losing part of their working capacity as clinicians get sick with the virus, or as they stay home because of exposure or to take care of a loved one. It’s a time for flexibility but also to flex our muscles as health care professionals. CME can be a way to empower ourselves by staying current on the cutting edge of our specialties, but also brushing up on the medicine that we may be asked to practice in a time of great need.
 

Dr. Posada is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va. She also is associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. Dr. Posada has no disclosures.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, it now seems like the norm is that large medical conferences are being canceled.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) canceled its 2020 annual meeting, which was scheduled for late April. The cancellation disappointed many, because we will miss out on the camaraderie and professional invigoration that comes from gathering with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals from across the United States and around the world. After the APA’s decision was announced, the White House released guidelines advising Americans to avoid social gatherings of 10 or more people.

On a practical level, many psychiatrists will not be able to earn up to 35 continuing medical education credits (CME) from attending the meeting and fulfilling the administrative requirements to obtain a CME certificate. Not only have meetings been canceled, but events many other clinicians count on for CME, such as journal clubs and department grand rounds, have been canceled until they can be moved to a virtual space.

The CME requirements for state medical licenses vary widely. On average, most states require at least 25 credits per year or 60 to 100 credits every 2 years, and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology requires diplomates to complete an average of 30 specialty and/or subspecialty CME credits per year, averaged over 3 years. Usually, annual medical conferences would be a great way to get an infusion of CME credits, brush up on cutting-edge treatments, and review the basics.

On top of everything else we have to worry about with COVID-19, getting enough CME credits has been added to the list for many psychiatrists and mental health clinicians. A public health emergency like COVID-19 is a time for flexibility and thoughtful planning. As our schedules and daily lives are disrupted, it’s important to find relief in routine activities that are not affected by social distancing and fears of isolation and quarantine. A routine activity to lean into might include learning or practicing a skill that we enjoy, such as psychiatry (hopefully!) and the practice of medicine. The CME could be focused on a psychiatric topic or perhaps learning about the specifics of COVID-19 or brushing up on medical knowledge that might be a bit rusty after many years of practicing solely psychiatry.

As you start to gather CME credits online, it’s helpful to sign up for a service that stores your CME credits and helps you keep track of the number. When it comes time to renew your medical license or apply for maintenance of certification (MOC), who wants to be the person searching through their email for PDFs of CME certificates or taking pictures or scanning paper certificates? The APA has a section under education and MOC to track certificates earned by watching online modules from its “Learning Center.” The website also allows users to upload external certificates. The American Medical Association offers a similar service on its “Ed Hub,” in which users can log in to watch, listen, or download articles to earn CME credits after finishing the associated quiz. Medscape, in the CME and Education section, also offers an easy-to-use CME dashboard, in which clinicians can filter by their specialty, topic, duration of learning activity – ranging from 0.25 to 3 CME credits. Clinicians also can track their credits as they complete activities.

If you’re someone who’s having trouble focusing on anything besides COVID-19, there are COVID-19-specific CME activities that are available and can help psychiatrists feel comfortable talking with patients, family, and their institutions about the risks of COVID-19. The AMA Ed Hub has a featured 8-credit CME course about the novel coronavirus with updates about diagnosis, treatment, and public health strategies.

For the psychiatrists who may have procrastinated in-depth learning about the opioid crisis or getting their buprenorphine waivers, AMA Ed Hub offers a 42-credit course about opioids and pain management covering guidelines, research, and treatment.

For fun refreshers on general medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine offers up to 20 online CME exams based on quizzes from interesting clinical cases ranging from “regular” medicine to rare clinical scenarios. The APA Learning Center has an easy-to-use search function allowing users to select content from more than 200 modules covering a wide range of general topics; from reviewing recent treatment guidelines to specialized psychiatric topics such as geriatric bipolar disorder. A psychiatrist who has been quickly pushed to telepsychiatry because of the current pandemic could use the APA Learning Center to find educational modules about risk management in telepsychiatry or learn the special considerations of using telepsychiatry to treat patients with serious mental illness.

Using podcasts to earn CME is becoming increasingly common, with such as outlets as JAMA Networks offering podcasts in many specialties in which subscribers can take a quiz through the JAMA app and obtain CME credits.

As our clinical boundaries as psychiatrists are pushed by an ever-changing public health situation, now is the time to earn CME focused on new topics to meet the demands placed on health care workers at the front lines of clinical care.

If the COVID-19 pandemic reaches the number of cases predicted by public health officials, our health care system is going to be under extreme stress. All specialties face the threat of losing part of their working capacity as clinicians get sick with the virus, or as they stay home because of exposure or to take care of a loved one. It’s a time for flexibility but also to flex our muscles as health care professionals. CME can be a way to empower ourselves by staying current on the cutting edge of our specialties, but also brushing up on the medicine that we may be asked to practice in a time of great need.
 

Dr. Posada is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va. She also is associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. Dr. Posada has no disclosures.

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, remains viable in aerosols for hours and on surfaces for days, according to a new study.

The data indicate that the stability of the new virus is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, which caused the SARS epidemic, researchers report in an article published on the medRxivpreprint server. (The posted article has been submitted for journal publication but has not been peer reviewed.)

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has quickly outstripped the pace of the 2003 SARS epidemic. “Superspread” of the earlier disease arose from infection during medical procedures, in which a single infected individual seeded many secondary cases. In contrast, the novel coronavirus appears to be spread more through human-to-human transmission in a variety of settings.

However, it’s not yet known the extent to which asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals spread the new virus through daily routine.

To investigate how long SARS-CoV-2 remains infective in the environment, Neeltje van Doremalen, PhD, of the Laboratory of Virology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Hamilton, Montana, and colleagues conducted simulation experiments in which they compared the viability of SARS-CoV-2 with that of SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on surfaces.

Among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, viral loads in the upper respiratory tract are high; as a consequence, respiratory secretion in the form of aerosols (<5 μm) or droplets (>5 mcm) is likely, the authors note.

van Doremalen and colleagues used nebulizers to generate aerosols. Samples of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 were collecting at 0, 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes on a gelatin filter. The researchers then tested the infectivity of the viruses on Vero cells grown in culture.

They found that SARS-CoV-2 was largely stable through the full 180-minute test, with only a slight decline at 3 hours. This time course is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1; both viruses have a median half-life in aerosols of 2.7 hours (range, 1.65 hr for SARS-CoV-1, vs 7.24 hr for SARS-CoV-2).

The researchers then tested the viruses on a variety of surfaces for up to 7 days, using humidity values and temperatures designed to mimic “a variety of household and hospital situations.” The volumes of viral exposures that the team used were consistent with amounts found in the human upper and lower respiratory tracts.

For example, they applied 50 mcL of virus-containing solution to a piece of cardboard and then swabbed the surface, at different times, with an additional 1 mcL of medium. Each surface assay was replicated three times.

The novel coronavirus was most stable on plastic and stainless steel, with some virus remaining viable up to 72 hours. However, by that time the viral load had fallen by about three orders of magnitude, indicating exponential decay. This profile was remarkably similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, according to the authors.

However, the two viruses differed in staying power on copper and cardboard. No viable SARS-CoV-2 was detectable on copper after 4 hours or on cardboard after 24 hours. In contrast, SARS-CoV-1 was not viable beyond 8 hours for either copper or cardboard.

“Taken together, our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of HCoV-19 [SARS-CoV-2] are plausible, as the virus can remain viable in aerosols for multiple hours and on surfaces up to days,” the authors conclude.

Andrew Pekosz, PhD, codirector of the Center of Excellence in Influenza Research and Surveillance and director of the Center for Emerging Viruses and Infectious Diseases at the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health, Baltimore, Maryland, applauds the real-world value of the experiments.

“The PCR [polymerase chain reaction] test used [in other studies] to detect SARS-CoV-2 just detects the virus genome. It doesn’t tell you if the virus was still infectious, or ‘viable.’ That’s why this study is interesting,” Pekosz said. “It focuses on infectious virus, which is the virus that has the potential to transmit and infect another person. What we don’t know yet is how much infectious (viable) virus is needed to initiate infection in another person.”

He suggests that further investigations evaluate other types of environmental surfaces, including lacquered wood that is made into desks and ceramic tiles found in bathrooms and kitchens.

One limitation of the study is that the data for experiments on cardboard were more variable than the data for other surfaces tested.

The investigators and Pekosz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, remains viable in aerosols for hours and on surfaces for days, according to a new study.

The data indicate that the stability of the new virus is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, which caused the SARS epidemic, researchers report in an article published on the medRxivpreprint server. (The posted article has been submitted for journal publication but has not been peer reviewed.)

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has quickly outstripped the pace of the 2003 SARS epidemic. “Superspread” of the earlier disease arose from infection during medical procedures, in which a single infected individual seeded many secondary cases. In contrast, the novel coronavirus appears to be spread more through human-to-human transmission in a variety of settings.

However, it’s not yet known the extent to which asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals spread the new virus through daily routine.

To investigate how long SARS-CoV-2 remains infective in the environment, Neeltje van Doremalen, PhD, of the Laboratory of Virology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Hamilton, Montana, and colleagues conducted simulation experiments in which they compared the viability of SARS-CoV-2 with that of SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on surfaces.

Among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, viral loads in the upper respiratory tract are high; as a consequence, respiratory secretion in the form of aerosols (<5 μm) or droplets (>5 mcm) is likely, the authors note.

van Doremalen and colleagues used nebulizers to generate aerosols. Samples of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 were collecting at 0, 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes on a gelatin filter. The researchers then tested the infectivity of the viruses on Vero cells grown in culture.

They found that SARS-CoV-2 was largely stable through the full 180-minute test, with only a slight decline at 3 hours. This time course is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1; both viruses have a median half-life in aerosols of 2.7 hours (range, 1.65 hr for SARS-CoV-1, vs 7.24 hr for SARS-CoV-2).

The researchers then tested the viruses on a variety of surfaces for up to 7 days, using humidity values and temperatures designed to mimic “a variety of household and hospital situations.” The volumes of viral exposures that the team used were consistent with amounts found in the human upper and lower respiratory tracts.

For example, they applied 50 mcL of virus-containing solution to a piece of cardboard and then swabbed the surface, at different times, with an additional 1 mcL of medium. Each surface assay was replicated three times.

The novel coronavirus was most stable on plastic and stainless steel, with some virus remaining viable up to 72 hours. However, by that time the viral load had fallen by about three orders of magnitude, indicating exponential decay. This profile was remarkably similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, according to the authors.

However, the two viruses differed in staying power on copper and cardboard. No viable SARS-CoV-2 was detectable on copper after 4 hours or on cardboard after 24 hours. In contrast, SARS-CoV-1 was not viable beyond 8 hours for either copper or cardboard.

“Taken together, our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of HCoV-19 [SARS-CoV-2] are plausible, as the virus can remain viable in aerosols for multiple hours and on surfaces up to days,” the authors conclude.

Andrew Pekosz, PhD, codirector of the Center of Excellence in Influenza Research and Surveillance and director of the Center for Emerging Viruses and Infectious Diseases at the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health, Baltimore, Maryland, applauds the real-world value of the experiments.

“The PCR [polymerase chain reaction] test used [in other studies] to detect SARS-CoV-2 just detects the virus genome. It doesn’t tell you if the virus was still infectious, or ‘viable.’ That’s why this study is interesting,” Pekosz said. “It focuses on infectious virus, which is the virus that has the potential to transmit and infect another person. What we don’t know yet is how much infectious (viable) virus is needed to initiate infection in another person.”

He suggests that further investigations evaluate other types of environmental surfaces, including lacquered wood that is made into desks and ceramic tiles found in bathrooms and kitchens.

One limitation of the study is that the data for experiments on cardboard were more variable than the data for other surfaces tested.

The investigators and Pekosz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, remains viable in aerosols for hours and on surfaces for days, according to a new study.

The data indicate that the stability of the new virus is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, which caused the SARS epidemic, researchers report in an article published on the medRxivpreprint server. (The posted article has been submitted for journal publication but has not been peer reviewed.)

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has quickly outstripped the pace of the 2003 SARS epidemic. “Superspread” of the earlier disease arose from infection during medical procedures, in which a single infected individual seeded many secondary cases. In contrast, the novel coronavirus appears to be spread more through human-to-human transmission in a variety of settings.

However, it’s not yet known the extent to which asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals spread the new virus through daily routine.

To investigate how long SARS-CoV-2 remains infective in the environment, Neeltje van Doremalen, PhD, of the Laboratory of Virology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Hamilton, Montana, and colleagues conducted simulation experiments in which they compared the viability of SARS-CoV-2 with that of SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on surfaces.

Among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, viral loads in the upper respiratory tract are high; as a consequence, respiratory secretion in the form of aerosols (<5 μm) or droplets (>5 mcm) is likely, the authors note.

van Doremalen and colleagues used nebulizers to generate aerosols. Samples of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 were collecting at 0, 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes on a gelatin filter. The researchers then tested the infectivity of the viruses on Vero cells grown in culture.

They found that SARS-CoV-2 was largely stable through the full 180-minute test, with only a slight decline at 3 hours. This time course is similar to that of SARS-CoV-1; both viruses have a median half-life in aerosols of 2.7 hours (range, 1.65 hr for SARS-CoV-1, vs 7.24 hr for SARS-CoV-2).

The researchers then tested the viruses on a variety of surfaces for up to 7 days, using humidity values and temperatures designed to mimic “a variety of household and hospital situations.” The volumes of viral exposures that the team used were consistent with amounts found in the human upper and lower respiratory tracts.

For example, they applied 50 mcL of virus-containing solution to a piece of cardboard and then swabbed the surface, at different times, with an additional 1 mcL of medium. Each surface assay was replicated three times.

The novel coronavirus was most stable on plastic and stainless steel, with some virus remaining viable up to 72 hours. However, by that time the viral load had fallen by about three orders of magnitude, indicating exponential decay. This profile was remarkably similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, according to the authors.

However, the two viruses differed in staying power on copper and cardboard. No viable SARS-CoV-2 was detectable on copper after 4 hours or on cardboard after 24 hours. In contrast, SARS-CoV-1 was not viable beyond 8 hours for either copper or cardboard.

“Taken together, our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of HCoV-19 [SARS-CoV-2] are plausible, as the virus can remain viable in aerosols for multiple hours and on surfaces up to days,” the authors conclude.

Andrew Pekosz, PhD, codirector of the Center of Excellence in Influenza Research and Surveillance and director of the Center for Emerging Viruses and Infectious Diseases at the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health, Baltimore, Maryland, applauds the real-world value of the experiments.

“The PCR [polymerase chain reaction] test used [in other studies] to detect SARS-CoV-2 just detects the virus genome. It doesn’t tell you if the virus was still infectious, or ‘viable.’ That’s why this study is interesting,” Pekosz said. “It focuses on infectious virus, which is the virus that has the potential to transmit and infect another person. What we don’t know yet is how much infectious (viable) virus is needed to initiate infection in another person.”

He suggests that further investigations evaluate other types of environmental surfaces, including lacquered wood that is made into desks and ceramic tiles found in bathrooms and kitchens.

One limitation of the study is that the data for experiments on cardboard were more variable than the data for other surfaces tested.

The investigators and Pekosz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) plus vitamin D deficiency were found to have more hospitalization outcomes, including number of emergency department (ED) visits, the number of hospital admissions for pain crisis, and the length of hospital admission, according to a study published online by researchers from New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital.

Dr_Microbe/Thinkstock

The researchers performed a retrospective chart review of all 134 pediatric patients with SCD (aged 1-21 years) from January 2015 to January 2016 in an urban-based hospital setting. Ninety patients with at least one reported vitamin D level who maintained follow-up during the time studied were enrolled. Hospitalization rates were compared between vitamin D deficiency (< 20 ng/mL) and sufficiency (> 20 ng/mL) patients.

When compared to patients with SCD and sufficient vitamin D levels, patients with both SCD and vitamin D deficiency were more likely to have at least one ED visit (P < .01), at least one admission for pain crisis (P < .01), and a longer length of admission (^P < .0001), the researchers found.

“Screening and treatment for vitamin D deficiency is generally cost effective and readily available, potentially having a significant impact on the quality of life for those living with sickle cell disease,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that there was no study funding and that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brown B et al. Blood Cells Mol Dis. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.bcmd.2020.102415.

Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) plus vitamin D deficiency were found to have more hospitalization outcomes, including number of emergency department (ED) visits, the number of hospital admissions for pain crisis, and the length of hospital admission, according to a study published online by researchers from New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital.

Dr_Microbe/Thinkstock

The researchers performed a retrospective chart review of all 134 pediatric patients with SCD (aged 1-21 years) from January 2015 to January 2016 in an urban-based hospital setting. Ninety patients with at least one reported vitamin D level who maintained follow-up during the time studied were enrolled. Hospitalization rates were compared between vitamin D deficiency (< 20 ng/mL) and sufficiency (> 20 ng/mL) patients.

When compared to patients with SCD and sufficient vitamin D levels, patients with both SCD and vitamin D deficiency were more likely to have at least one ED visit (P < .01), at least one admission for pain crisis (P < .01), and a longer length of admission (^P < .0001), the researchers found.

“Screening and treatment for vitamin D deficiency is generally cost effective and readily available, potentially having a significant impact on the quality of life for those living with sickle cell disease,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that there was no study funding and that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brown B et al. Blood Cells Mol Dis. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.bcmd.2020.102415.

Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) plus vitamin D deficiency were found to have more hospitalization outcomes, including number of emergency department (ED) visits, the number of hospital admissions for pain crisis, and the length of hospital admission, according to a study published online by researchers from New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital.

Dr_Microbe/Thinkstock

The researchers performed a retrospective chart review of all 134 pediatric patients with SCD (aged 1-21 years) from January 2015 to January 2016 in an urban-based hospital setting. Ninety patients with at least one reported vitamin D level who maintained follow-up during the time studied were enrolled. Hospitalization rates were compared between vitamin D deficiency (< 20 ng/mL) and sufficiency (> 20 ng/mL) patients.

When compared to patients with SCD and sufficient vitamin D levels, patients with both SCD and vitamin D deficiency were more likely to have at least one ED visit (P < .01), at least one admission for pain crisis (P < .01), and a longer length of admission (^P < .0001), the researchers found.

“Screening and treatment for vitamin D deficiency is generally cost effective and readily available, potentially having a significant impact on the quality of life for those living with sickle cell disease,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that there was no study funding and that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brown B et al. Blood Cells Mol Dis. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.bcmd.2020.102415.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Following a percutaneous intervention with a second-generation drug-eluting stent, a judicious interruption of antiplatelet therapy for noncardiac surgery does not increase risk of net adverse clinical events, according to a large dataset presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Drawn from a multicenter registry in South Korea, it is likely that those in whom antiplatelet therapy was stopped during the perioperative period were at a lower relative risk, but the data remain reassuring, according to Jung-Sun Kim, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.

In the registry of patients with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) undergoing noncardiac surgery, “antiplatelet therapy was discontinued in almost half of the patients,” Dr. Kim reported. When these patients were compared with those who did not discontinue antiplatelet therapy, the data, called an “exploratory analysis,” suggested “no increased risk” of a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or major bleeding.

The retrospective analysis involved 3,582 percutaneous intervention (PCI) patients who had received a second-generation DES and subsequently underwent noncardiac surgery. In 1,750 of these patients, antiplatelet therapy was temporarily discontinued. The remaining 1,832 remained on some form of antiplatelet treatment, whether aspirin, a P2Y12 inhibitor, or dual-antiplatelet therapy.

There were no significant differences in crude rates between groups in rates at 30 days of a composite endpoint of MACE, major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, or net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of adverse events that included MACE and major bleeding.

Relative risks for antiplatelet discontinuation remained generally low even after multiple stratifications performed to explore different variables, including the types of antiplatelet therapy being taken at the time of discontinuation, the types of noncardiac surgery performed, and the duration of discontinuation.

Of these variables, the interval of discontinuation appeared to be most relevant. Antiplatelet discontinuation of 3 days or less appeared to be associated with a higher risk of bleeding, although the difference did not reach significance. Discontinuations of 9 days or more were associated with increased risk of MACE, and this difference did reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 3.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-8.38).

“Discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy for a period of 4-8 days appears to be optimal,” Dr. Kim said.

In general, risk of MACE, major bleeding, or NACE could not be linked to type of surgery, with the exception of intra-abdominal surgery. For this procedure, there appeared to be a lower risk of MACE in those who discontinued relative to those who remained on antiplatelet therapy, Dr. Kim reported.

Importantly, because of the fact that the decision to stop antiplatelet treatment was made by treating physicians, the characteristics of those who discontinued or remained on antiplatelet therapy differed meaningfully. Specifically, those in the discontinuation group were younger and were less likely to have additional risks for thrombotic events such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease. In those who discontinued antiplatelets, the average time since PCI was 23 months versus 16 months in the continuation group.

In addition, “more of the patients underwent higher-risk surgeries in the discontinuation group,” Dr. Kim added.

Relative rates of MACE and NACE remained similar even after risk adjustment, but Dr. Kim advised that the data should be “interpreted cautiously” because of the retrospective nature of the analysis.

A panel of experts invited to comment on the presentation agreed. These data were considered reassuring for clinicians considering an interruption of antiplatelet therapy following PCI with a second-generation DES, but there was uncertainty about their value for defining which patients are the best candidates.

The decision to discontinue antiplatelet drugs for noncardiac surgery is an important and common dilemma, but these data might be best characterized as “a testament to Korean cardiologists making good decisions,” said David J. Moliterno, MD, chairman of the department of medicine at University of Kentucky Health Care, Lexington.

Dr. Kim reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Following a percutaneous intervention with a second-generation drug-eluting stent, a judicious interruption of antiplatelet therapy for noncardiac surgery does not increase risk of net adverse clinical events, according to a large dataset presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Drawn from a multicenter registry in South Korea, it is likely that those in whom antiplatelet therapy was stopped during the perioperative period were at a lower relative risk, but the data remain reassuring, according to Jung-Sun Kim, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.

In the registry of patients with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) undergoing noncardiac surgery, “antiplatelet therapy was discontinued in almost half of the patients,” Dr. Kim reported. When these patients were compared with those who did not discontinue antiplatelet therapy, the data, called an “exploratory analysis,” suggested “no increased risk” of a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or major bleeding.

The retrospective analysis involved 3,582 percutaneous intervention (PCI) patients who had received a second-generation DES and subsequently underwent noncardiac surgery. In 1,750 of these patients, antiplatelet therapy was temporarily discontinued. The remaining 1,832 remained on some form of antiplatelet treatment, whether aspirin, a P2Y12 inhibitor, or dual-antiplatelet therapy.

There were no significant differences in crude rates between groups in rates at 30 days of a composite endpoint of MACE, major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, or net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of adverse events that included MACE and major bleeding.

Relative risks for antiplatelet discontinuation remained generally low even after multiple stratifications performed to explore different variables, including the types of antiplatelet therapy being taken at the time of discontinuation, the types of noncardiac surgery performed, and the duration of discontinuation.

Of these variables, the interval of discontinuation appeared to be most relevant. Antiplatelet discontinuation of 3 days or less appeared to be associated with a higher risk of bleeding, although the difference did not reach significance. Discontinuations of 9 days or more were associated with increased risk of MACE, and this difference did reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 3.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-8.38).

“Discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy for a period of 4-8 days appears to be optimal,” Dr. Kim said.

In general, risk of MACE, major bleeding, or NACE could not be linked to type of surgery, with the exception of intra-abdominal surgery. For this procedure, there appeared to be a lower risk of MACE in those who discontinued relative to those who remained on antiplatelet therapy, Dr. Kim reported.

Importantly, because of the fact that the decision to stop antiplatelet treatment was made by treating physicians, the characteristics of those who discontinued or remained on antiplatelet therapy differed meaningfully. Specifically, those in the discontinuation group were younger and were less likely to have additional risks for thrombotic events such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease. In those who discontinued antiplatelets, the average time since PCI was 23 months versus 16 months in the continuation group.

In addition, “more of the patients underwent higher-risk surgeries in the discontinuation group,” Dr. Kim added.

Relative rates of MACE and NACE remained similar even after risk adjustment, but Dr. Kim advised that the data should be “interpreted cautiously” because of the retrospective nature of the analysis.

A panel of experts invited to comment on the presentation agreed. These data were considered reassuring for clinicians considering an interruption of antiplatelet therapy following PCI with a second-generation DES, but there was uncertainty about their value for defining which patients are the best candidates.

The decision to discontinue antiplatelet drugs for noncardiac surgery is an important and common dilemma, but these data might be best characterized as “a testament to Korean cardiologists making good decisions,” said David J. Moliterno, MD, chairman of the department of medicine at University of Kentucky Health Care, Lexington.

Dr. Kim reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Following a percutaneous intervention with a second-generation drug-eluting stent, a judicious interruption of antiplatelet therapy for noncardiac surgery does not increase risk of net adverse clinical events, according to a large dataset presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Drawn from a multicenter registry in South Korea, it is likely that those in whom antiplatelet therapy was stopped during the perioperative period were at a lower relative risk, but the data remain reassuring, according to Jung-Sun Kim, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.

In the registry of patients with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) undergoing noncardiac surgery, “antiplatelet therapy was discontinued in almost half of the patients,” Dr. Kim reported. When these patients were compared with those who did not discontinue antiplatelet therapy, the data, called an “exploratory analysis,” suggested “no increased risk” of a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or major bleeding.

The retrospective analysis involved 3,582 percutaneous intervention (PCI) patients who had received a second-generation DES and subsequently underwent noncardiac surgery. In 1,750 of these patients, antiplatelet therapy was temporarily discontinued. The remaining 1,832 remained on some form of antiplatelet treatment, whether aspirin, a P2Y12 inhibitor, or dual-antiplatelet therapy.

There were no significant differences in crude rates between groups in rates at 30 days of a composite endpoint of MACE, major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, or net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of adverse events that included MACE and major bleeding.

Relative risks for antiplatelet discontinuation remained generally low even after multiple stratifications performed to explore different variables, including the types of antiplatelet therapy being taken at the time of discontinuation, the types of noncardiac surgery performed, and the duration of discontinuation.

Of these variables, the interval of discontinuation appeared to be most relevant. Antiplatelet discontinuation of 3 days or less appeared to be associated with a higher risk of bleeding, although the difference did not reach significance. Discontinuations of 9 days or more were associated with increased risk of MACE, and this difference did reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 3.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-8.38).

“Discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy for a period of 4-8 days appears to be optimal,” Dr. Kim said.

In general, risk of MACE, major bleeding, or NACE could not be linked to type of surgery, with the exception of intra-abdominal surgery. For this procedure, there appeared to be a lower risk of MACE in those who discontinued relative to those who remained on antiplatelet therapy, Dr. Kim reported.

Importantly, because of the fact that the decision to stop antiplatelet treatment was made by treating physicians, the characteristics of those who discontinued or remained on antiplatelet therapy differed meaningfully. Specifically, those in the discontinuation group were younger and were less likely to have additional risks for thrombotic events such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease. In those who discontinued antiplatelets, the average time since PCI was 23 months versus 16 months in the continuation group.

In addition, “more of the patients underwent higher-risk surgeries in the discontinuation group,” Dr. Kim added.

Relative rates of MACE and NACE remained similar even after risk adjustment, but Dr. Kim advised that the data should be “interpreted cautiously” because of the retrospective nature of the analysis.

A panel of experts invited to comment on the presentation agreed. These data were considered reassuring for clinicians considering an interruption of antiplatelet therapy following PCI with a second-generation DES, but there was uncertainty about their value for defining which patients are the best candidates.

The decision to discontinue antiplatelet drugs for noncardiac surgery is an important and common dilemma, but these data might be best characterized as “a testament to Korean cardiologists making good decisions,” said David J. Moliterno, MD, chairman of the department of medicine at University of Kentucky Health Care, Lexington.

Dr. Kim reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

Vaccination against the Ebola virus is recommended for first responders, health care personnel, and laboratory workers deemed at high risk of exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The committee voted unanimously to recommended pre-exposure vaccination with the rVSVdeltaG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine for adults aged 18 years and older who are at potential risk of exposure to the Ebola species Zaire ebolavirus because they fall into any of the following three categories:

• They are responding to an outbreak of Ebola virus disease.
• They are working as health care personnel at a federally designated Ebola Treatment Center in the United States.
• The are working in laboratories or are other staff members at biosafety-level 4 facilities in the United States.

Mary Choi, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) presented data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and the work group considerations in recommending vaccination in the three target populations.

In clinical trials, the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the vaccine were arthritis and arthralgia, Dr. Choi said, but the duration of those cases was limited to months and did not persist long term.

Pre-exposure vaccination for health care personnel, laboratory workers, and support staff would provide an additional layer of protection, she explained, in addition to existing safeguards such as personal protective equipment and engineering controls at the facility. The work group’s research showed that most of the target population believed that the desirable effects of that protection outweigh potentially undesirable effects, Dr. Choi noted.

Some committee members expressed concerns about vaccination of pregnant women. But the recommendations are presented as “population based, not shared decision making,” said Sharon E. Frey, MD, of Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri.

Several members noted that pregnant women should not be automatically included or excluded from vaccination if they fall into a high-risk population. And the committee agreed that additional guidance in the policy note will help assess risk and that organizations will determine the risk for their employees and whether to offer the vaccine.

The FDA approved the currently available U.S. vaccine for Ebola in 2019. Merck manufactures that vaccine.

The ACIP members had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Vaccination against the Ebola virus is recommended for first responders, health care personnel, and laboratory workers deemed at high risk of exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The committee voted unanimously to recommended pre-exposure vaccination with the rVSVdeltaG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine for adults aged 18 years and older who are at potential risk of exposure to the Ebola species Zaire ebolavirus because they fall into any of the following three categories:

• They are responding to an outbreak of Ebola virus disease.
• They are working as health care personnel at a federally designated Ebola Treatment Center in the United States.
• The are working in laboratories or are other staff members at biosafety-level 4 facilities in the United States.

Mary Choi, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) presented data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and the work group considerations in recommending vaccination in the three target populations.

In clinical trials, the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the vaccine were arthritis and arthralgia, Dr. Choi said, but the duration of those cases was limited to months and did not persist long term.

Pre-exposure vaccination for health care personnel, laboratory workers, and support staff would provide an additional layer of protection, she explained, in addition to existing safeguards such as personal protective equipment and engineering controls at the facility. The work group’s research showed that most of the target population believed that the desirable effects of that protection outweigh potentially undesirable effects, Dr. Choi noted.

Some committee members expressed concerns about vaccination of pregnant women. But the recommendations are presented as “population based, not shared decision making,” said Sharon E. Frey, MD, of Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri.

Several members noted that pregnant women should not be automatically included or excluded from vaccination if they fall into a high-risk population. And the committee agreed that additional guidance in the policy note will help assess risk and that organizations will determine the risk for their employees and whether to offer the vaccine.

The FDA approved the currently available U.S. vaccine for Ebola in 2019. Merck manufactures that vaccine.

The ACIP members had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Vaccination against the Ebola virus is recommended for first responders, health care personnel, and laboratory workers deemed at high risk of exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The committee voted unanimously to recommended pre-exposure vaccination with the rVSVdeltaG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine for adults aged 18 years and older who are at potential risk of exposure to the Ebola species Zaire ebolavirus because they fall into any of the following three categories:

• They are responding to an outbreak of Ebola virus disease.
• They are working as health care personnel at a federally designated Ebola Treatment Center in the United States.
• The are working in laboratories or are other staff members at biosafety-level 4 facilities in the United States.

Mary Choi, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) presented data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and the work group considerations in recommending vaccination in the three target populations.

In clinical trials, the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the vaccine were arthritis and arthralgia, Dr. Choi said, but the duration of those cases was limited to months and did not persist long term.

Pre-exposure vaccination for health care personnel, laboratory workers, and support staff would provide an additional layer of protection, she explained, in addition to existing safeguards such as personal protective equipment and engineering controls at the facility. The work group’s research showed that most of the target population believed that the desirable effects of that protection outweigh potentially undesirable effects, Dr. Choi noted.

Some committee members expressed concerns about vaccination of pregnant women. But the recommendations are presented as “population based, not shared decision making,” said Sharon E. Frey, MD, of Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri.

Several members noted that pregnant women should not be automatically included or excluded from vaccination if they fall into a high-risk population. And the committee agreed that additional guidance in the policy note will help assess risk and that organizations will determine the risk for their employees and whether to offer the vaccine.

The FDA approved the currently available U.S. vaccine for Ebola in 2019. Merck manufactures that vaccine.

The ACIP members had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Researchers have created an artificial intelligence algorithm that can evaluate a 10-second ECG recording of a person in normal sinus rhythm and tell with a sensitivity and specificity of almost 80% whether or not that person ever had atrial fibrillation episodes some time in the past or will have a first arrhythmia episode in the near future.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Although this algorithm – derived from and then validated with a dataset of nearly 650,000 ECG recordings from more than 180,000 patients – still needs prospective validation, it offers the prospect for a potential revolution in screening for atrial fibrillation (AFib), Paul A. Friedman, MD, cautioned at the annual International AF Symposium. If initial clinical findings are confirmed, it would show that a 10-second, 12-lead ECG recording can provide the same screening scope as what otherwise takes weeks of ambulatory ECG recording with a Holter monitor or an implanted device, explained Dr. Friedman, professor of medicine and chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

This finding “could have important implications for atrial fibrillation screening and for the management of patients with unexplained stroke,” Dr. Friedman and his associates noted in the published report of their study (Lancet. 2019 Sep 7;394[10201]:861-7). “We’re still working to define the window of ECG” recording time that provides the optimal assessment for a history of asymptomatic AFib, but the “possibilities this opens are huge,” Dr. Friedman said in his talk at the symposium. This work sprang from the premise that “subtle signatures” in a brief, apparently normal sinus rhythm ECG tracing can harbor reliable clues about AFib history or an imminent episode.

The 2019 report by Dr. Friedman and associates documented that in the validation phase of their study, the trained artificial intelligence (AI) program identified patients with a history of AFib or an impending arrhythmia event from a single, 10-second ECG that to the naked eye seemed to show normal sinus rhythm with a sensitivity of 79.0%, a specificity of 79.5%, and an accuracy of 79.4%. It also showed an area under a receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, meaning that screening for AFib by this method compared favorably with the area-under-the-curve (AUC) results tallied by several widely accepted screening tools, including Pap smears for cervical cancer (AUC of 0.70), mammograms for breast cancer (AUC of 0.85), and CHA2DS2-VASc scoring for estimating stroke risk in AFib patients (AUC of 0.57-0.72), Dr. Friedman said.

The researchers developed the AI algorithm with more than 450,000 10-second ECG tracings collected from roughly 126,000 patients who underwent at least one ECG recording as part of their routine care at the Mayo Clinic during 1993-2017. The goal was for the program to find and validate recurring characteristics in the ECG that consistently linked with a history of or an impending AFib episode and that did not appear in ECG recordings from people without any AFib history. The program this effort produced then underwent further adjustment with the use of more than 64,340 ECGs from an additional 18,116 patients, and then the final product underwent validation testing with a further 130,802 ECGs collected from an additional 36,280 people, the study phase that resulted in the reported sensitivity and specificity estimates.

It’s currently unclear to Dr. Friedman and associates what specific features the program uses to classify patients. It’s an important question, but if the results are reproducible and reliable, this uncertainty shouldn’t slow clinical adoption, he said in an interview.

While “this particular algorithm needs prospective vetting,” a similar algorithm developed by Dr. Friedman and the same research team that uses a 10-second ECG to identify patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less is further advanced in development, and a device that uses this algorithm will soon receive Food and Drug Administration review under a fast track designation that the agency approved in late 2019.

The researchers developed this algorithm for estimating left ventricular function using a strategy similar to their development of a tool for diagnosing AFib (Nat Med. 2019 Jan 7;25[1]:70-4), and results from 100 patients prospectively studied with this approach to ECG analysis and reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions in November 2019 showed that the algorithm identified substantial left ventricular dysfunction with an AUC of 0.906 (Circulation. 2019 Nov 19;140[suppl 1]:A13447). The same team of investigators has developed an AI algorithm that can calculate a person’s physiologic age based on the ECG recording (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]: 10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007284).

The study received no commercial funding, and Dr. Friedman and coauthors had no relevant disclosures. The Mayo Clinic has licensed a related artificial intelligence algorithm to EKO, and Dr. Friedman may benefit financially from this arrangement.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Researchers have created an artificial intelligence algorithm that can evaluate a 10-second ECG recording of a person in normal sinus rhythm and tell with a sensitivity and specificity of almost 80% whether or not that person ever had atrial fibrillation episodes some time in the past or will have a first arrhythmia episode in the near future.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Although this algorithm – derived from and then validated with a dataset of nearly 650,000 ECG recordings from more than 180,000 patients – still needs prospective validation, it offers the prospect for a potential revolution in screening for atrial fibrillation (AFib), Paul A. Friedman, MD, cautioned at the annual International AF Symposium. If initial clinical findings are confirmed, it would show that a 10-second, 12-lead ECG recording can provide the same screening scope as what otherwise takes weeks of ambulatory ECG recording with a Holter monitor or an implanted device, explained Dr. Friedman, professor of medicine and chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

This finding “could have important implications for atrial fibrillation screening and for the management of patients with unexplained stroke,” Dr. Friedman and his associates noted in the published report of their study (Lancet. 2019 Sep 7;394[10201]:861-7). “We’re still working to define the window of ECG” recording time that provides the optimal assessment for a history of asymptomatic AFib, but the “possibilities this opens are huge,” Dr. Friedman said in his talk at the symposium. This work sprang from the premise that “subtle signatures” in a brief, apparently normal sinus rhythm ECG tracing can harbor reliable clues about AFib history or an imminent episode.

The 2019 report by Dr. Friedman and associates documented that in the validation phase of their study, the trained artificial intelligence (AI) program identified patients with a history of AFib or an impending arrhythmia event from a single, 10-second ECG that to the naked eye seemed to show normal sinus rhythm with a sensitivity of 79.0%, a specificity of 79.5%, and an accuracy of 79.4%. It also showed an area under a receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, meaning that screening for AFib by this method compared favorably with the area-under-the-curve (AUC) results tallied by several widely accepted screening tools, including Pap smears for cervical cancer (AUC of 0.70), mammograms for breast cancer (AUC of 0.85), and CHA2DS2-VASc scoring for estimating stroke risk in AFib patients (AUC of 0.57-0.72), Dr. Friedman said.

The researchers developed the AI algorithm with more than 450,000 10-second ECG tracings collected from roughly 126,000 patients who underwent at least one ECG recording as part of their routine care at the Mayo Clinic during 1993-2017. The goal was for the program to find and validate recurring characteristics in the ECG that consistently linked with a history of or an impending AFib episode and that did not appear in ECG recordings from people without any AFib history. The program this effort produced then underwent further adjustment with the use of more than 64,340 ECGs from an additional 18,116 patients, and then the final product underwent validation testing with a further 130,802 ECGs collected from an additional 36,280 people, the study phase that resulted in the reported sensitivity and specificity estimates.

It’s currently unclear to Dr. Friedman and associates what specific features the program uses to classify patients. It’s an important question, but if the results are reproducible and reliable, this uncertainty shouldn’t slow clinical adoption, he said in an interview.

While “this particular algorithm needs prospective vetting,” a similar algorithm developed by Dr. Friedman and the same research team that uses a 10-second ECG to identify patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less is further advanced in development, and a device that uses this algorithm will soon receive Food and Drug Administration review under a fast track designation that the agency approved in late 2019.

The researchers developed this algorithm for estimating left ventricular function using a strategy similar to their development of a tool for diagnosing AFib (Nat Med. 2019 Jan 7;25[1]:70-4), and results from 100 patients prospectively studied with this approach to ECG analysis and reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions in November 2019 showed that the algorithm identified substantial left ventricular dysfunction with an AUC of 0.906 (Circulation. 2019 Nov 19;140[suppl 1]:A13447). The same team of investigators has developed an AI algorithm that can calculate a person’s physiologic age based on the ECG recording (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]: 10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007284).

The study received no commercial funding, and Dr. Friedman and coauthors had no relevant disclosures. The Mayo Clinic has licensed a related artificial intelligence algorithm to EKO, and Dr. Friedman may benefit financially from this arrangement.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Researchers have created an artificial intelligence algorithm that can evaluate a 10-second ECG recording of a person in normal sinus rhythm and tell with a sensitivity and specificity of almost 80% whether or not that person ever had atrial fibrillation episodes some time in the past or will have a first arrhythmia episode in the near future.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Although this algorithm – derived from and then validated with a dataset of nearly 650,000 ECG recordings from more than 180,000 patients – still needs prospective validation, it offers the prospect for a potential revolution in screening for atrial fibrillation (AFib), Paul A. Friedman, MD, cautioned at the annual International AF Symposium. If initial clinical findings are confirmed, it would show that a 10-second, 12-lead ECG recording can provide the same screening scope as what otherwise takes weeks of ambulatory ECG recording with a Holter monitor or an implanted device, explained Dr. Friedman, professor of medicine and chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

This finding “could have important implications for atrial fibrillation screening and for the management of patients with unexplained stroke,” Dr. Friedman and his associates noted in the published report of their study (Lancet. 2019 Sep 7;394[10201]:861-7). “We’re still working to define the window of ECG” recording time that provides the optimal assessment for a history of asymptomatic AFib, but the “possibilities this opens are huge,” Dr. Friedman said in his talk at the symposium. This work sprang from the premise that “subtle signatures” in a brief, apparently normal sinus rhythm ECG tracing can harbor reliable clues about AFib history or an imminent episode.

The 2019 report by Dr. Friedman and associates documented that in the validation phase of their study, the trained artificial intelligence (AI) program identified patients with a history of AFib or an impending arrhythmia event from a single, 10-second ECG that to the naked eye seemed to show normal sinus rhythm with a sensitivity of 79.0%, a specificity of 79.5%, and an accuracy of 79.4%. It also showed an area under a receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, meaning that screening for AFib by this method compared favorably with the area-under-the-curve (AUC) results tallied by several widely accepted screening tools, including Pap smears for cervical cancer (AUC of 0.70), mammograms for breast cancer (AUC of 0.85), and CHA2DS2-VASc scoring for estimating stroke risk in AFib patients (AUC of 0.57-0.72), Dr. Friedman said.

The researchers developed the AI algorithm with more than 450,000 10-second ECG tracings collected from roughly 126,000 patients who underwent at least one ECG recording as part of their routine care at the Mayo Clinic during 1993-2017. The goal was for the program to find and validate recurring characteristics in the ECG that consistently linked with a history of or an impending AFib episode and that did not appear in ECG recordings from people without any AFib history. The program this effort produced then underwent further adjustment with the use of more than 64,340 ECGs from an additional 18,116 patients, and then the final product underwent validation testing with a further 130,802 ECGs collected from an additional 36,280 people, the study phase that resulted in the reported sensitivity and specificity estimates.

It’s currently unclear to Dr. Friedman and associates what specific features the program uses to classify patients. It’s an important question, but if the results are reproducible and reliable, this uncertainty shouldn’t slow clinical adoption, he said in an interview.

While “this particular algorithm needs prospective vetting,” a similar algorithm developed by Dr. Friedman and the same research team that uses a 10-second ECG to identify patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less is further advanced in development, and a device that uses this algorithm will soon receive Food and Drug Administration review under a fast track designation that the agency approved in late 2019.

The researchers developed this algorithm for estimating left ventricular function using a strategy similar to their development of a tool for diagnosing AFib (Nat Med. 2019 Jan 7;25[1]:70-4), and results from 100 patients prospectively studied with this approach to ECG analysis and reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions in November 2019 showed that the algorithm identified substantial left ventricular dysfunction with an AUC of 0.906 (Circulation. 2019 Nov 19;140[suppl 1]:A13447). The same team of investigators has developed an AI algorithm that can calculate a person’s physiologic age based on the ECG recording (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]: 10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007284).

The study received no commercial funding, and Dr. Friedman and coauthors had no relevant disclosures. The Mayo Clinic has licensed a related artificial intelligence algorithm to EKO, and Dr. Friedman may benefit financially from this arrangement.

[email protected]

Bempedoic acid, the first agent in a new class of drugs that reduce LDL cholesterol, received Food and Drug Administration approval on Feb. 21 for treating selected hypercholesterolemic patients and is a welcome addition to the medicine cabinet, say lipid experts.

MDedge News

However, it is a tertiary option at least until results from a 14,000 patient clinical-outcome trial of bempedoic acid come out, likely in 2022, they agreed.

“I’m excited to have a new tool in the toolkit for treating high-risk patients, but I will always reach first for the drugs proven to reduce clinical outcomes,” said Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health and associate director of Preventive Cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. That sentiment, shared by other experts, should for the time being relegate bempedoic acid (Nexletol) to a backup role behind statins, ezetimibe, and the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies that are all now on the U.S. market and all buttressed with evidence of their ability to cut cardiovascular disease death and other CVD outcomes from large outcome studies.

The existing evidence base for bempedoic acid rests primarily two multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of bempedoic acid in patients with LDL levels above 70 mg/dL while on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. In CLEAR Harmony, results showed that treatment with bempedoic acid cut LDL-cholesterol levels by an average of 18% more compared with placebo (N Engl J Med 2019;380:1022-32). In CLEAR Wisdom, bempedoic acid reduced LDL cholesterol levels by 17% (JAMA. 2019;322[18]:1780-8).

While those two trials proved the drug’s ability to lower levels of LDL cholesterol, they lacked the power to address whether this effect cut the incidence of CVD events, a question that the CLEAR Outcomes trial aims to answer.

“I believe in the lipid hypothesis, but the main thing we need to see is whether bempedoic acid leads to a meaningful reduction in CVD events. The window for bempedoic acid will remain narrow until we see the outcomes results,” Dr. Michos said in an interview.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that’s activated in liver and targets the same cholesterol synthesis pathway as statins by inhibition of ATP-citrate lyase, an enzyme that’s upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, thereby enhancing LDL cholesterol clearance via up-regulation of LDL receptors

.

Combined treatment with bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “may be successful in avoiding [using] a PCSK9 inhibitor in some patients, and in particular patients with HeFH or those who are statin intolerant.” But like his colleagues, Dr. Eckel agreed that, for the moment, ezetimibe has an edge over bempedoic acid because of its more extensive evidence base. “If the combination of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe is not needed, the decision [of which one of these to use] needs to depend on the outcome trial results for ezetimibe,” he said. Other factors clinicians could apply if faced with choosing between these two agents include the significant reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein that bempedoic acid produces; the downside that bempedoic acid can cause in some patients an early and persistent rise in serum uric acid levels that can trigger gout flares in patients with a history of gout or at risk for gout; and cost, he said.

Cost is the room-dwelling elephant that colors many decisions about which lipid-lowering drug to use for patients, with options running the price gamut from the generic and uniformly affordable statins and ezetimibe, to the notoriously pricey PCSK9 inhibitors that remain for many patients either prohibitively expensive or hard to get covered by some insurers. Bempedoic acid seems on track to fall somewhere between these two poles, although staff members from Esperion, the company that developed and will market bempedoic acid as Nexletol starting on March 30, declared in a conference call on Feb. 24 that “cost will not be an issue,” for indicated patients prescribed the drug. Company representatives cited a program of coupons, discounts, and rebates they have planned that they anticipate will allow patients who meet the labeled indications to have an out-of-pocket cost for bempedoic acid of “as low as” $10 for a 90-pill supply. They also noted their goal of getting bempedoic acid onto the lowest tier of the Medicare formulary.

How these steps actually play out in the fun house of U.S. prescription drug pricing and preauthorizations remains to be seen. “Out-of-pocket costs are not the real drivers” of drug access, noted Dr. Robinson. “Insurers will likely start with restricted access and prior authorization requirements, just as they did with ezetimibe when it was on patent and prior to having the results from a CVD outcomes trial.” For the time being, bempedoic acid can generally be seen as “expensive ezetimibe,” summed up Dr. Robinson.

Despite that somewhat dismissive characterization, experts are intrigued by the possibility of combining two moderately potent, oral, and safe lipid-lowering drugs in selected patients as a potential alternative to the still financially challenging PCSK9 inhibitors. Combining bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “has a lot of appeal,” said Dr. Michos. “Even though preauthorization has gotten better, it’s still a challenge to get a PCSK9 inhibitor approved.”

Much of her enthusiasm stems from a study reported last year that randomized 301 patients to treatment with bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, or both. The results showed that combined treatment has a similar safety profile to treatment with either drug alone, and produced a cut in LDL cholesterol that was roughly additive for the reductions produced by each drug by itself: Ezetimibe alone cut LDL by about 23%, bempedoic acid alone by about 17%, and the two dosed together once daily resulted in an average 36% drop (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864671). The results showed that, “in patients requiring intensive LDL cholesterol lowering, who cannot afford PCSK9 inhibitors, or have statin intolerance, bempedoic acid and ezetimibe are stronger together and can serve as an alternative approach for lipid management in ASCVD prevention,” wrote Dr. Michos and a coauthor in a commentary that appeared with the study results (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864672).

The concept of combined bempedoic acid and ezetimibe treatment is so appealing that the bempedoic acid manufacturer, Esperion, has already developed a single-pill formulation of the two drugs that received FDA marketing approval on February 26. A company statement said that marketing of this combined formulation, Nexlizet, will start in July 2020.

Although interest in bempedoic acid seems running high for patients included in the new FDA indication, Dr. Michos and others see possibly greater potential for what would now be off-label use for primary prevention in high-risk patients without HeFH, patients who generally don’t qualify for insurance coverage of a PCSK9 inhibitor.

“Use in primary prevention in [non-HeFH] patients with insufficient lowering of LDL cholesterol wouldn’t surprise me,” but a big concern will be out-of-pocket cost when off-label use precludes insurance coverage or discount eligibility, noted Dr. Eckel. An Esperion spokesperson said that the undiscounted, wholesale acquisition cost for bempedoic acid is expected to be roughly $10/pill, or about $300 for a 30-day supply, positioning it more or less midway between generic statins and ezetimibe and the list price for a PCSk9 inhibitor of roughly $500/month.

“I’m most excited about bempedoic acid in the off-label space, for patients who can’t get approved for a PCSK9 inhibitor, for treating patients with subclinical ASCVD, or really high-risk patients with multiple risk factors including diabetes,” especially when these patients are intolerant of a high-intensity statin regimen, said Dr. Michos. “I have a clinic full of patients” who can’t take their full, indicated dosage of a high-intensity statin, and when those patients also can’t get on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor then bempedoic acid will be an important part of their alternative regimen, she explained.

Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has received research funding from Esperion and from several other companies, and she has been a consultant to Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Eckel has received honoraria from Kowa, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi/Regeneron.

This article was updated 2/27/20.

[email protected]

Bempedoic acid, the first agent in a new class of drugs that reduce LDL cholesterol, received Food and Drug Administration approval on Feb. 21 for treating selected hypercholesterolemic patients and is a welcome addition to the medicine cabinet, say lipid experts.

MDedge News

However, it is a tertiary option at least until results from a 14,000 patient clinical-outcome trial of bempedoic acid come out, likely in 2022, they agreed.

“I’m excited to have a new tool in the toolkit for treating high-risk patients, but I will always reach first for the drugs proven to reduce clinical outcomes,” said Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health and associate director of Preventive Cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. That sentiment, shared by other experts, should for the time being relegate bempedoic acid (Nexletol) to a backup role behind statins, ezetimibe, and the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies that are all now on the U.S. market and all buttressed with evidence of their ability to cut cardiovascular disease death and other CVD outcomes from large outcome studies.

The existing evidence base for bempedoic acid rests primarily two multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of bempedoic acid in patients with LDL levels above 70 mg/dL while on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. In CLEAR Harmony, results showed that treatment with bempedoic acid cut LDL-cholesterol levels by an average of 18% more compared with placebo (N Engl J Med 2019;380:1022-32). In CLEAR Wisdom, bempedoic acid reduced LDL cholesterol levels by 17% (JAMA. 2019;322[18]:1780-8).

While those two trials proved the drug’s ability to lower levels of LDL cholesterol, they lacked the power to address whether this effect cut the incidence of CVD events, a question that the CLEAR Outcomes trial aims to answer.

“I believe in the lipid hypothesis, but the main thing we need to see is whether bempedoic acid leads to a meaningful reduction in CVD events. The window for bempedoic acid will remain narrow until we see the outcomes results,” Dr. Michos said in an interview.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that’s activated in liver and targets the same cholesterol synthesis pathway as statins by inhibition of ATP-citrate lyase, an enzyme that’s upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, thereby enhancing LDL cholesterol clearance via up-regulation of LDL receptors

.

Combined treatment with bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “may be successful in avoiding [using] a PCSK9 inhibitor in some patients, and in particular patients with HeFH or those who are statin intolerant.” But like his colleagues, Dr. Eckel agreed that, for the moment, ezetimibe has an edge over bempedoic acid because of its more extensive evidence base. “If the combination of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe is not needed, the decision [of which one of these to use] needs to depend on the outcome trial results for ezetimibe,” he said. Other factors clinicians could apply if faced with choosing between these two agents include the significant reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein that bempedoic acid produces; the downside that bempedoic acid can cause in some patients an early and persistent rise in serum uric acid levels that can trigger gout flares in patients with a history of gout or at risk for gout; and cost, he said.

Cost is the room-dwelling elephant that colors many decisions about which lipid-lowering drug to use for patients, with options running the price gamut from the generic and uniformly affordable statins and ezetimibe, to the notoriously pricey PCSK9 inhibitors that remain for many patients either prohibitively expensive or hard to get covered by some insurers. Bempedoic acid seems on track to fall somewhere between these two poles, although staff members from Esperion, the company that developed and will market bempedoic acid as Nexletol starting on March 30, declared in a conference call on Feb. 24 that “cost will not be an issue,” for indicated patients prescribed the drug. Company representatives cited a program of coupons, discounts, and rebates they have planned that they anticipate will allow patients who meet the labeled indications to have an out-of-pocket cost for bempedoic acid of “as low as” $10 for a 90-pill supply. They also noted their goal of getting bempedoic acid onto the lowest tier of the Medicare formulary.

How these steps actually play out in the fun house of U.S. prescription drug pricing and preauthorizations remains to be seen. “Out-of-pocket costs are not the real drivers” of drug access, noted Dr. Robinson. “Insurers will likely start with restricted access and prior authorization requirements, just as they did with ezetimibe when it was on patent and prior to having the results from a CVD outcomes trial.” For the time being, bempedoic acid can generally be seen as “expensive ezetimibe,” summed up Dr. Robinson.

Despite that somewhat dismissive characterization, experts are intrigued by the possibility of combining two moderately potent, oral, and safe lipid-lowering drugs in selected patients as a potential alternative to the still financially challenging PCSK9 inhibitors. Combining bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “has a lot of appeal,” said Dr. Michos. “Even though preauthorization has gotten better, it’s still a challenge to get a PCSK9 inhibitor approved.”

Much of her enthusiasm stems from a study reported last year that randomized 301 patients to treatment with bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, or both. The results showed that combined treatment has a similar safety profile to treatment with either drug alone, and produced a cut in LDL cholesterol that was roughly additive for the reductions produced by each drug by itself: Ezetimibe alone cut LDL by about 23%, bempedoic acid alone by about 17%, and the two dosed together once daily resulted in an average 36% drop (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864671). The results showed that, “in patients requiring intensive LDL cholesterol lowering, who cannot afford PCSK9 inhibitors, or have statin intolerance, bempedoic acid and ezetimibe are stronger together and can serve as an alternative approach for lipid management in ASCVD prevention,” wrote Dr. Michos and a coauthor in a commentary that appeared with the study results (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864672).

The concept of combined bempedoic acid and ezetimibe treatment is so appealing that the bempedoic acid manufacturer, Esperion, has already developed a single-pill formulation of the two drugs that received FDA marketing approval on February 26. A company statement said that marketing of this combined formulation, Nexlizet, will start in July 2020.

Although interest in bempedoic acid seems running high for patients included in the new FDA indication, Dr. Michos and others see possibly greater potential for what would now be off-label use for primary prevention in high-risk patients without HeFH, patients who generally don’t qualify for insurance coverage of a PCSK9 inhibitor.

“Use in primary prevention in [non-HeFH] patients with insufficient lowering of LDL cholesterol wouldn’t surprise me,” but a big concern will be out-of-pocket cost when off-label use precludes insurance coverage or discount eligibility, noted Dr. Eckel. An Esperion spokesperson said that the undiscounted, wholesale acquisition cost for bempedoic acid is expected to be roughly $10/pill, or about $300 for a 30-day supply, positioning it more or less midway between generic statins and ezetimibe and the list price for a PCSk9 inhibitor of roughly $500/month.

“I’m most excited about bempedoic acid in the off-label space, for patients who can’t get approved for a PCSK9 inhibitor, for treating patients with subclinical ASCVD, or really high-risk patients with multiple risk factors including diabetes,” especially when these patients are intolerant of a high-intensity statin regimen, said Dr. Michos. “I have a clinic full of patients” who can’t take their full, indicated dosage of a high-intensity statin, and when those patients also can’t get on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor then bempedoic acid will be an important part of their alternative regimen, she explained.

Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has received research funding from Esperion and from several other companies, and she has been a consultant to Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Eckel has received honoraria from Kowa, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi/Regeneron.

This article was updated 2/27/20.

[email protected]

Bempedoic acid, the first agent in a new class of drugs that reduce LDL cholesterol, received Food and Drug Administration approval on Feb. 21 for treating selected hypercholesterolemic patients and is a welcome addition to the medicine cabinet, say lipid experts.

MDedge News

However, it is a tertiary option at least until results from a 14,000 patient clinical-outcome trial of bempedoic acid come out, likely in 2022, they agreed.

“I’m excited to have a new tool in the toolkit for treating high-risk patients, but I will always reach first for the drugs proven to reduce clinical outcomes,” said Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health and associate director of Preventive Cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. That sentiment, shared by other experts, should for the time being relegate bempedoic acid (Nexletol) to a backup role behind statins, ezetimibe, and the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies that are all now on the U.S. market and all buttressed with evidence of their ability to cut cardiovascular disease death and other CVD outcomes from large outcome studies.

The existing evidence base for bempedoic acid rests primarily two multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of bempedoic acid in patients with LDL levels above 70 mg/dL while on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. In CLEAR Harmony, results showed that treatment with bempedoic acid cut LDL-cholesterol levels by an average of 18% more compared with placebo (N Engl J Med 2019;380:1022-32). In CLEAR Wisdom, bempedoic acid reduced LDL cholesterol levels by 17% (JAMA. 2019;322[18]:1780-8).

While those two trials proved the drug’s ability to lower levels of LDL cholesterol, they lacked the power to address whether this effect cut the incidence of CVD events, a question that the CLEAR Outcomes trial aims to answer.

“I believe in the lipid hypothesis, but the main thing we need to see is whether bempedoic acid leads to a meaningful reduction in CVD events. The window for bempedoic acid will remain narrow until we see the outcomes results,” Dr. Michos said in an interview.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that’s activated in liver and targets the same cholesterol synthesis pathway as statins by inhibition of ATP-citrate lyase, an enzyme that’s upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, thereby enhancing LDL cholesterol clearance via up-regulation of LDL receptors

.

Combined treatment with bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “may be successful in avoiding [using] a PCSK9 inhibitor in some patients, and in particular patients with HeFH or those who are statin intolerant.” But like his colleagues, Dr. Eckel agreed that, for the moment, ezetimibe has an edge over bempedoic acid because of its more extensive evidence base. “If the combination of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe is not needed, the decision [of which one of these to use] needs to depend on the outcome trial results for ezetimibe,” he said. Other factors clinicians could apply if faced with choosing between these two agents include the significant reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein that bempedoic acid produces; the downside that bempedoic acid can cause in some patients an early and persistent rise in serum uric acid levels that can trigger gout flares in patients with a history of gout or at risk for gout; and cost, he said.

Cost is the room-dwelling elephant that colors many decisions about which lipid-lowering drug to use for patients, with options running the price gamut from the generic and uniformly affordable statins and ezetimibe, to the notoriously pricey PCSK9 inhibitors that remain for many patients either prohibitively expensive or hard to get covered by some insurers. Bempedoic acid seems on track to fall somewhere between these two poles, although staff members from Esperion, the company that developed and will market bempedoic acid as Nexletol starting on March 30, declared in a conference call on Feb. 24 that “cost will not be an issue,” for indicated patients prescribed the drug. Company representatives cited a program of coupons, discounts, and rebates they have planned that they anticipate will allow patients who meet the labeled indications to have an out-of-pocket cost for bempedoic acid of “as low as” $10 for a 90-pill supply. They also noted their goal of getting bempedoic acid onto the lowest tier of the Medicare formulary.

How these steps actually play out in the fun house of U.S. prescription drug pricing and preauthorizations remains to be seen. “Out-of-pocket costs are not the real drivers” of drug access, noted Dr. Robinson. “Insurers will likely start with restricted access and prior authorization requirements, just as they did with ezetimibe when it was on patent and prior to having the results from a CVD outcomes trial.” For the time being, bempedoic acid can generally be seen as “expensive ezetimibe,” summed up Dr. Robinson.

Despite that somewhat dismissive characterization, experts are intrigued by the possibility of combining two moderately potent, oral, and safe lipid-lowering drugs in selected patients as a potential alternative to the still financially challenging PCSK9 inhibitors. Combining bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “has a lot of appeal,” said Dr. Michos. “Even though preauthorization has gotten better, it’s still a challenge to get a PCSK9 inhibitor approved.”

Much of her enthusiasm stems from a study reported last year that randomized 301 patients to treatment with bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, or both. The results showed that combined treatment has a similar safety profile to treatment with either drug alone, and produced a cut in LDL cholesterol that was roughly additive for the reductions produced by each drug by itself: Ezetimibe alone cut LDL by about 23%, bempedoic acid alone by about 17%, and the two dosed together once daily resulted in an average 36% drop (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864671). The results showed that, “in patients requiring intensive LDL cholesterol lowering, who cannot afford PCSK9 inhibitors, or have statin intolerance, bempedoic acid and ezetimibe are stronger together and can serve as an alternative approach for lipid management in ASCVD prevention,” wrote Dr. Michos and a coauthor in a commentary that appeared with the study results (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864672).

The concept of combined bempedoic acid and ezetimibe treatment is so appealing that the bempedoic acid manufacturer, Esperion, has already developed a single-pill formulation of the two drugs that received FDA marketing approval on February 26. A company statement said that marketing of this combined formulation, Nexlizet, will start in July 2020.

Although interest in bempedoic acid seems running high for patients included in the new FDA indication, Dr. Michos and others see possibly greater potential for what would now be off-label use for primary prevention in high-risk patients without HeFH, patients who generally don’t qualify for insurance coverage of a PCSK9 inhibitor.

“Use in primary prevention in [non-HeFH] patients with insufficient lowering of LDL cholesterol wouldn’t surprise me,” but a big concern will be out-of-pocket cost when off-label use precludes insurance coverage or discount eligibility, noted Dr. Eckel. An Esperion spokesperson said that the undiscounted, wholesale acquisition cost for bempedoic acid is expected to be roughly $10/pill, or about $300 for a 30-day supply, positioning it more or less midway between generic statins and ezetimibe and the list price for a PCSk9 inhibitor of roughly $500/month.

“I’m most excited about bempedoic acid in the off-label space, for patients who can’t get approved for a PCSK9 inhibitor, for treating patients with subclinical ASCVD, or really high-risk patients with multiple risk factors including diabetes,” especially when these patients are intolerant of a high-intensity statin regimen, said Dr. Michos. “I have a clinic full of patients” who can’t take their full, indicated dosage of a high-intensity statin, and when those patients also can’t get on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor then bempedoic acid will be an important part of their alternative regimen, she explained.

Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has received research funding from Esperion and from several other companies, and she has been a consultant to Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Eckel has received honoraria from Kowa, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi/Regeneron.

This article was updated 2/27/20.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – Carotid artery stenting in older, asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis is, in general, as bad an idea as it has already proven to be in symptomatic patients, with a multifold increase in adverse short- and mid-term outcomes, compared with similar older, asymptomatic patients who underwent endarterectomy, according to a combined-study analysis with more than 2,500 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The risk for poor outcomes in patients with severe but asymptomatic carotid artery disease who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS), compared with patients who instead underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) “abruptly increased around age 75,” in an analysis that combined data from the two major, published, randomized trials that compared these two interventions in this patient population, Jenifer H. Voeks, PhD said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

These results “largely mirror” the findings from a similar combined analysis of data from four major, randomized trials that compared CEA and CAS in patients with symptomatic carotid disease, she noted (Lancet. 2016 Mar 26;387[10025]:1305-11). The new findings in an expanded population of asymptomatic patients derived from two separate studies showed that, in patients aged 70 years or less, “CAS appears to be a reasonable alternative to CEA, but above age 70, and certainly above age 75, age-related risk factors such as cerebrovascular anatomy and underlying cerebral pathology should be carefully considered before selecting patients for CAS,” said Dr. Voeks, a neurology researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Many experts also believe that, for asymptomatic patients, intensive medical management may have returned as an alternative to either of these invasive approaches for treating severe carotid stenosis and has achieved a level of equipoise that led to the launch of CREST 2 (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial). CREST 2 is comparing CEA and CAS with medical management, and is scheduled to report results in 2021.

The data for this analysis in asymptomatic patients came from the first CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial; N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 1;363[1]:11-23), which included 1,181 asymptomatic patients (nearly half the total enrollment, with symptomatic patients making up the balance) and had no age ceiling, as well as all 1,453 patients from the ACT 1 trial, which enrolled exclusively asymptomatic patients and limited enrollment to patients aged 79 years or less (N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 17;374[11]: 1011-20). Because the maximum age of patients in ACT 1 was 79 years, for this analysis Dr. Voeks and associates only included the 1,091 asymptomatic CREST patients who also were within the same age ceiling. The resulting cohort of 2,544 included 1,637 patients who underwent CAS and 907 who underwent CEA (because of a 3:1 randomization ratio in ACT 1), creating the largest data set to compare CAS and CEA by age in asymptomatic patients, Dr. Voeks noted. When subdivided by age, 30% of the cohort was younger that 65 years, 54% were 65-74, and 16% were 75-79.

The primary outcome the researchers used for their analysis was the combined incidence of periprocedural stroke, MI, or death, plus the incidence of ipsilateral stroke during 4 years of follow-up post procedure. Among patients who underwent CAS, this outcome occurred in roughly 9% of patients aged 75-79 years and in about 3% of those younger than 65 years, a hazard ratio of 2.9 that was statistically significant. In contrast, the incidence of the primary outcome among patients aged 65-74 years was just 30% higher, compared with patients aged less than 65 years, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Patients who underwent CEA showed no similar relationship between age and outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome among the CEA patients was roughly the same, about 3.5%, regardless of their age.

A second analysis that considered age as a continuous variable showed a sharply spiked increase in the risk for CAS patients, compared with CEA patients once they reached about age 73-75 years. Until about age 72, the rate of the primary outcome was nearly the same regardless of whether patients underwent CAS or CEA, but the risk for adverse outcomes rose “steeply” starting at about age 75 so that by age 79 the rate of the primary outcome approached 300% higher among the CAS patients compared with CEA patients, Dr. Voeks said.

She cautioned that the analysis included just 115 total primary-outcome events, which makes the incidence rate estimates somewhat imprecise, and that the data reflect outcomes in patients who were treated more than a decade ago, but these data remain the only reported results from large randomized trials that compared CAS and CEA in asymptomatic patients.

Dr. Voeks reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Voeks JH al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12;51[suppl 1], Abstract 70.

LOS ANGELES – Carotid artery stenting in older, asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis is, in general, as bad an idea as it has already proven to be in symptomatic patients, with a multifold increase in adverse short- and mid-term outcomes, compared with similar older, asymptomatic patients who underwent endarterectomy, according to a combined-study analysis with more than 2,500 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The risk for poor outcomes in patients with severe but asymptomatic carotid artery disease who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS), compared with patients who instead underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) “abruptly increased around age 75,” in an analysis that combined data from the two major, published, randomized trials that compared these two interventions in this patient population, Jenifer H. Voeks, PhD said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

These results “largely mirror” the findings from a similar combined analysis of data from four major, randomized trials that compared CEA and CAS in patients with symptomatic carotid disease, she noted (Lancet. 2016 Mar 26;387[10025]:1305-11). The new findings in an expanded population of asymptomatic patients derived from two separate studies showed that, in patients aged 70 years or less, “CAS appears to be a reasonable alternative to CEA, but above age 70, and certainly above age 75, age-related risk factors such as cerebrovascular anatomy and underlying cerebral pathology should be carefully considered before selecting patients for CAS,” said Dr. Voeks, a neurology researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Many experts also believe that, for asymptomatic patients, intensive medical management may have returned as an alternative to either of these invasive approaches for treating severe carotid stenosis and has achieved a level of equipoise that led to the launch of CREST 2 (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial). CREST 2 is comparing CEA and CAS with medical management, and is scheduled to report results in 2021.

The data for this analysis in asymptomatic patients came from the first CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial; N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 1;363[1]:11-23), which included 1,181 asymptomatic patients (nearly half the total enrollment, with symptomatic patients making up the balance) and had no age ceiling, as well as all 1,453 patients from the ACT 1 trial, which enrolled exclusively asymptomatic patients and limited enrollment to patients aged 79 years or less (N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 17;374[11]: 1011-20). Because the maximum age of patients in ACT 1 was 79 years, for this analysis Dr. Voeks and associates only included the 1,091 asymptomatic CREST patients who also were within the same age ceiling. The resulting cohort of 2,544 included 1,637 patients who underwent CAS and 907 who underwent CEA (because of a 3:1 randomization ratio in ACT 1), creating the largest data set to compare CAS and CEA by age in asymptomatic patients, Dr. Voeks noted. When subdivided by age, 30% of the cohort was younger that 65 years, 54% were 65-74, and 16% were 75-79.

The primary outcome the researchers used for their analysis was the combined incidence of periprocedural stroke, MI, or death, plus the incidence of ipsilateral stroke during 4 years of follow-up post procedure. Among patients who underwent CAS, this outcome occurred in roughly 9% of patients aged 75-79 years and in about 3% of those younger than 65 years, a hazard ratio of 2.9 that was statistically significant. In contrast, the incidence of the primary outcome among patients aged 65-74 years was just 30% higher, compared with patients aged less than 65 years, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Patients who underwent CEA showed no similar relationship between age and outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome among the CEA patients was roughly the same, about 3.5%, regardless of their age.

A second analysis that considered age as a continuous variable showed a sharply spiked increase in the risk for CAS patients, compared with CEA patients once they reached about age 73-75 years. Until about age 72, the rate of the primary outcome was nearly the same regardless of whether patients underwent CAS or CEA, but the risk for adverse outcomes rose “steeply” starting at about age 75 so that by age 79 the rate of the primary outcome approached 300% higher among the CAS patients compared with CEA patients, Dr. Voeks said.

She cautioned that the analysis included just 115 total primary-outcome events, which makes the incidence rate estimates somewhat imprecise, and that the data reflect outcomes in patients who were treated more than a decade ago, but these data remain the only reported results from large randomized trials that compared CAS and CEA in asymptomatic patients.

Dr. Voeks reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Voeks JH al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12;51[suppl 1], Abstract 70.

LOS ANGELES – Carotid artery stenting in older, asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis is, in general, as bad an idea as it has already proven to be in symptomatic patients, with a multifold increase in adverse short- and mid-term outcomes, compared with similar older, asymptomatic patients who underwent endarterectomy, according to a combined-study analysis with more than 2,500 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The risk for poor outcomes in patients with severe but asymptomatic carotid artery disease who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS), compared with patients who instead underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) “abruptly increased around age 75,” in an analysis that combined data from the two major, published, randomized trials that compared these two interventions in this patient population, Jenifer H. Voeks, PhD said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

These results “largely mirror” the findings from a similar combined analysis of data from four major, randomized trials that compared CEA and CAS in patients with symptomatic carotid disease, she noted (Lancet. 2016 Mar 26;387[10025]:1305-11). The new findings in an expanded population of asymptomatic patients derived from two separate studies showed that, in patients aged 70 years or less, “CAS appears to be a reasonable alternative to CEA, but above age 70, and certainly above age 75, age-related risk factors such as cerebrovascular anatomy and underlying cerebral pathology should be carefully considered before selecting patients for CAS,” said Dr. Voeks, a neurology researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Many experts also believe that, for asymptomatic patients, intensive medical management may have returned as an alternative to either of these invasive approaches for treating severe carotid stenosis and has achieved a level of equipoise that led to the launch of CREST 2 (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial). CREST 2 is comparing CEA and CAS with medical management, and is scheduled to report results in 2021.

The data for this analysis in asymptomatic patients came from the first CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial; N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 1;363[1]:11-23), which included 1,181 asymptomatic patients (nearly half the total enrollment, with symptomatic patients making up the balance) and had no age ceiling, as well as all 1,453 patients from the ACT 1 trial, which enrolled exclusively asymptomatic patients and limited enrollment to patients aged 79 years or less (N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 17;374[11]: 1011-20). Because the maximum age of patients in ACT 1 was 79 years, for this analysis Dr. Voeks and associates only included the 1,091 asymptomatic CREST patients who also were within the same age ceiling. The resulting cohort of 2,544 included 1,637 patients who underwent CAS and 907 who underwent CEA (because of a 3:1 randomization ratio in ACT 1), creating the largest data set to compare CAS and CEA by age in asymptomatic patients, Dr. Voeks noted. When subdivided by age, 30% of the cohort was younger that 65 years, 54% were 65-74, and 16% were 75-79.

The primary outcome the researchers used for their analysis was the combined incidence of periprocedural stroke, MI, or death, plus the incidence of ipsilateral stroke during 4 years of follow-up post procedure. Among patients who underwent CAS, this outcome occurred in roughly 9% of patients aged 75-79 years and in about 3% of those younger than 65 years, a hazard ratio of 2.9 that was statistically significant. In contrast, the incidence of the primary outcome among patients aged 65-74 years was just 30% higher, compared with patients aged less than 65 years, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Patients who underwent CEA showed no similar relationship between age and outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome among the CEA patients was roughly the same, about 3.5%, regardless of their age.

A second analysis that considered age as a continuous variable showed a sharply spiked increase in the risk for CAS patients, compared with CEA patients once they reached about age 73-75 years. Until about age 72, the rate of the primary outcome was nearly the same regardless of whether patients underwent CAS or CEA, but the risk for adverse outcomes rose “steeply” starting at about age 75 so that by age 79 the rate of the primary outcome approached 300% higher among the CAS patients compared with CEA patients, Dr. Voeks said.

She cautioned that the analysis included just 115 total primary-outcome events, which makes the incidence rate estimates somewhat imprecise, and that the data reflect outcomes in patients who were treated more than a decade ago, but these data remain the only reported results from large randomized trials that compared CAS and CEA in asymptomatic patients.

Dr. Voeks reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Voeks JH al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12;51[suppl 1], Abstract 70.