Cardiac rehabilitation has a class 1 indication (ie, strong recommendation) after heart surgery, myocardial infarction, or coronary intervention, and for stable angina or peripheral artery disease. It has a class 2a indication (ie, moderate recommendation) for stable systolic heart failure. Yet it is still under­utilized despite its demonstrated benefits, endorsement by most recognized cardiovascular societies, and coverage by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Here, we review cardiac rehabilitation—its benefits, appropriate indications, barriers to referral and enrollment, and efforts to increase its use.

EXERCISE: SLOW TO BE ADOPTED

In 1772, William Heberden (also remembered today for describing swelling of the distal interphalangeal joints in osteoarthritis) described¹ a patient with angina pectoris who “set himself a task of sawing wood for half an hour every day, and was nearly cured.”

Despite early clues, it would be some time before the medical community would recognize the benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health. Before the 1930s, immobilization and extended bedrest were encouraged for up to 6 weeks after a cardiovascular event, leading to significant deconditioning.² Things slowly began to change in the 1940s with Levine’s introduction of up-to-chair therapy,³ and short daily walks were introduced in the 1950s. Over time, the link between a sedentary lifestyle and cardiovascular disease was studied and led to greater investigation into the benefits of exercise, propelling us into the modern era.^4,5

CARDIAC REHABILITATION: COMPREHENSIVE RISK REDUCTION

The American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (AACVPR) defines cardiac rehabilitation as the provision of comprehensive long-term services involving medical evaluation, prescriptive exercise, cardiac risk-factor modification, education, counseling, and behavioral interventions.⁶ CMS defines it as a physician-supervised program that furnishes physician-prescribed exercise, cardiac risk-factor modification (including education, counseling, and behavioral intervention), psychosocial assessment, outcomes assessment, and other items and services.⁷

In general, most cardiac rehabilitation programs provide medically supervised exercise and patient education designed to improve cardiac health and functional status. Risk factors are targeted to reduce disability and rates of morbidity and mortality, to improve functional capacity, and to alleviate activity-related symptoms.

FROM HOSPITAL TO SELF-MAINTENANCE

Phase 1: Inpatient rehabilitation

Phase 1 typically takes place in the inpatient setting, often after open heart surgery (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting, valve repair or replacement, heart transplant), myocardial infarction, or percutaneous coronary intervention. This phase may last only a few days, especially in the current era of short hospital stays.

During phase 1, patients discuss their health situation and goals with their primary provider or cardiologist and receive education about recovery and cardiovascular risk factors. Early mobilization to prepare for discharge and to resume simple activities of daily living is emphasized. Depending on the institution, phase 1 exercise may involve simple ambulation on the ward or using equipment such as a stationary bike or treadmill.⁶ Phase 2 enrollment ideally is set up before discharge.

Phase 2: Limited-time outpatient rehabilitation

Phase 2 traditionally takes place in a hospital-based outpatient facility and consists of a physician-supervised multidisciplinary program. Growing evidence shows that home-based cardiac rehabilitation may be as effective as a medical facility-based program and should be an option for patients who have difficulty getting access to a traditional program.⁸

A phase 2 program takes a threefold approach, consisting of exercise, aggressive risk-factor modification, and education classes. A Cochrane review⁹ included programs that also incorporated behavioral modification and psychosocial support as a means of secondary prevention, underscoring the evolving definition of cardiac rehabilitation.

During the initial phase 2 visit, an individualized treatment plan is developed, incorporating an exercise prescription and realistic goals for secondary prevention. Sessions typically take place 3 times a week for up to 36 sessions; usually, options are available for less frequent weekly attendance for a longer period to achieve a full course. In some cases, patients may qualify for up to 72 sessions, particularly if they have not progressed as expected.

Exercise. As part of the initial evaluation, AACVPR guidelines⁶ suggest an exercise test­—eg, a symptom-limited exercise stress test, a 6-minute walk test, or use of a Rating of Perceived Exertion scale. Prescribed exercise generally targets moderate activity in the range of 50% to 70% of peak estimated functional capacity. In the appropriate clinical context, high-functioning patients can be offered high-intensity interval training instead of moderate exercise, as they confer similar benefits.¹⁰

Risk-factor reduction. Comprehensive risk-factor reduction can address smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, and diet, as well as psychosocial issues such as stress, anxiety, depression, and alcohol use. Sexual activity counseling may also be included.

Education classes are aimed at helping patients understand cardiovascular disease and empowering them to manage their medical treatment and lifestyle modifications.⁶

Phase 3: Lifetime maintenance

In phase 3, patients independently continue risk-factor modification and physical activity without cardiac monitoring. Most cardiac rehabilitation programs offer transition-to-maintenance classes after completion of phase 2; this may be a welcome option, particularly for those who have developed a good routine and rapport with the staff and other participants. Others may opt for an independent program, using their own home equipment or a local health club.

EXERCISE: MOSTLY SAFE, WITH PROVEN BENEFITS

The safety of cardiac rehabilitation is well established, with a low risk of major cardiovascular complications. A US study in the early 1980s of 167 cardiac rehabilitation programs found 1 cardiac arrest for every 111,996 exercise hours, 1 myocardial infarction per 293,990 exercise hours, and 1 fatality per 783,972 exercise hours.¹¹ A 2006 study of more than 65 cardiac rehabilitation centers in France found 1 cardiac event per 8,484 exercise tests and 1.3 cardiac arrests per 1 million exercise hours.¹²

The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation are numerous and substantial.^9,13–17 A 2016 Cochrane review and meta-analysis of 63 randomized controlled trials with 14,486 participants found a reduced rate of cardiovascular mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64–0.86), with a number needed to treat of 37, and fewer hospital re­admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70–0.96).⁹

Reductions in mortality rates are dose-dependent. A study of more than 30,000 Medicare beneficiaries who participated in cardiac rehabilitation found that those who attended more sessions had a lower rate of morbidity and death at 4 years, particularly if they participated in more than 11 sessions. Those who attended the full 36 sessions had a mortality rate 47% lower than those who attended a single session.¹⁷ There was a 15% reduction in mortality for those who attended 36 sessions compared with 24 sessions, a 28% lower risk with attending 36 sessions compared with 12. After adjustment, each additional 6 sessions was associated with a 6% reduction in mortality. The curves continued to separate up to 4 years.

The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation go beyond risk reduction and include improved functional capacity, greater ease with activities of daily living, and improved quality of life.⁹ Patients receive structure and support from the management team and other participants, which may provide an additional layer of friendship and psychosocial support for making lifestyle changes.

Is the overall mortality rate improved?

In the modern era, with access to optimal medical therapy and drug-eluting stents, one might expect only small additional benefit from cardiac rehabilitation. The 2016 Cochrane review and meta-analysis found that although cardiac rehabilitation contributed to improved cardiovascular mortality rates and health-related quality of life, no significant reduction was detected in the rate of death from all causes.⁸ But the analysis did not necessarily support removing the claim of reduced all-cause mortality for cardiac rehabilitation: only randomized controlled trials were examined, and the quality of evidence for each outcome was deemed to be low to moderate because of a general paucity of reports, including many small trials that followed patients for less than 12 months.

A large cohort analysis¹⁵ with more than 73,000 patients who had undergone cardiac rehabilitation found a relative reduction in mortality rate of 58% at 1 year and 21% to 34% at 5 years, with elderly women gaining the most benefit. In the Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION) trial, with more than 2,300 patients followed for a median of 2.5 years, exercise training for heart failure was associated with reduced rates of all-cause mortality or hospitalization (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.99; P = .03) and of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.99; P = .03).¹⁸

Regardless of the precise reduction in all-cause mortality, the cardiovascular and health-quality outcomes of cardiac rehabilitation clearly indicate benefit. More trials with follow-up longer than 1 year are needed to definitively determine the impact of cardiac rehabilitation on the all-cause mortality rate.

WHO SHOULD BE OFFERED CARDIAC REHABILITATION?

The 2006 CMS coverage criteria listed the indications for cardiac rehabilitation as myocardial infarction within the preceding 12 months, coronary artery bypass surgery, stable angina pectoris, heart valve repair or replacement, percutaneous coronary intervention, and heart or heart-lung transplant.

In 2014, stable chronic systolic heart failure was added to the list (Table 2). Qualifications include New York Heart Association class II (mild symptoms, slight limitation of activity) to class IV (severe limitations, symptoms at rest), an ejection fraction of 35% or less, and being stable on optimal medical therapy for at least 6 weeks.

In 2017, CMS approved supervised exercise therapy for peripheral arterial disease. Supervised exercise has a class 1 recommendation by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for treating intermittent claudication. Supervised exercise therapy can increase walking distance by 180% and is superior to medical therapy alone. Unsupervised exercise has a class 2b recommendation.^19,20

Other patients may not qualify for phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation according to CMS or private insurance but could benefit from an exercise prescription and enrollment in a local phase 3 or home exercise program. Indications might include diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, atrial fibrillation, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation after newer, less-invasive procedures for transcatheter valve repair and replacement are not well established, and more research is needed in this area.

WHEN TO REFER

Ades et al have defined cardiac rehabilitation referral as a combination of electronic medical records order, patient-physician discussion, and receipt of an order by a cardiac rehabilitation program.²¹

Ideally, referral for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation should take place at the time of hospital discharge. The AACVPR endorses a “cardiovascular continuum of care” model that emphasizes a smooth transition from inpatient to outpatient programs.⁶ Inpatient referral is a strong predictor of cardiac rehabilitation enrollment, and lack of referral in phase 1 negatively affects enrollment rates.

Depending on the diagnosis, US and Canadian guidelines recommend cardiac rehabilitation starting within 1 to 4 weeks of the index event, with acceptable wait times up to 60 days.^6,22 In the United Kingdom, referral is recommended within 24 hours of patient eligibility; assessment for a cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation program, with a defined pathway and individual goals, is expected to be completed within 10 working days of referral.²³ Such a standard is difficult to meet in the United States, where the time from hospital discharge to cardiac rehabilitation program enrollment averages 35 days.^24,25

After an uncomplicated myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention, patients with a normal or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction should start outpatient cardiac rehabilitation within 14 days of the index event. For such cases, cardiac rehabilitation has been shown to be safe within 1 to 2 weeks of hospital discharge and is associated with increased participation rates.

REHABILITATION IS STILL UNDERUSED

Despite its significant benefits, cardiac rehabilitation is underused for many reasons.

Referral rates vary

A study using the 1997 Medicare claims data­base showed national referral rates of only 14% after myocardial infarction and 31% after coronary artery bypass grafting.³¹

A later study using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry between 2009 and 2017 found that the situation had improved, with a referral rate of about 60% for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.³² Nevertheless, referral rates for cardiac rehabilitation remain highly variable and still lag behind other CMS quality measures for optimal medical therapy after acute myocardial infarction (Figure 1). Factors associated with higher referral rates included ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, care in a high-volume center for percutaneous coronary intervention, and care in a private or community hospital in a Midwestern state. Small Midwestern hospitals generally had referral rates of over 80%, while major teaching hospitals and hospital systems on the East Coast and the West Coast had referral rates of less than 20%. Unlike some studies, this study found that insurance status had little bearing on referral rates.

Other studies found lower referral rates for women and patients with comorbidities such as previous coronary artery bypass grafting, diabetes, and heart failure.^33,34

In the United Kingdom, patients with heart failure made up only 5% of patients in cardiac rehabilitation; only 7% to 20% of patients with a heart failure diagnosis were referred to cardiac rehabilitation from general and cardiology wards.³⁵

Enrollment, completion rates even lower

Rates of referral for cardiac rehabilitation do not equate to rates of enrollment or participation. Enrollment was 50% in the United Kingdom in 2016.³⁵ A 2015 US study evaluated 58,269 older patients eligible for cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction;  62% were referred for cardiac rehabilitation at the time of discharge, but only 23% of the total attended at least 1 session, and just 5% of the total completed 36 or more sessions.³⁶

BARRIERS, OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE

The underuse of cardiac rehabilitation in the United States has led to an American Heart Association presidential advisory on the referral, enrollment, and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation.³⁴ Dozens of barriers are mentioned, with several standing out as having the largest impact: lack of physician referral, weak endorsement by the prescribing provider, female sex of patients, lack of program availability, work-related hardship, low socioeconomic status, and lack of or limited healthcare insurance. Copayments have also become a major barrier, often ranging from $20 to $40 per session for patients with Medicare.

The Million Hearts Initiative has established a goal of 70% cardiac rehabilitation compliance for eligible patients by 2022, a goal they estimate could save 25,000 lives and prevent 180,000 hospitalizations annually.²¹

Lack of physician awareness and lack of referral may be the most modifiable factors with the capacity to have the largest impact. Increasing physician awareness is a top priority not only for primary care providers, but also for cardiologists. In 2014, CMS made referral for cardiac rehabilitation a quality measure that is trackable and reportable. CMS has also proposed models that would incentivize participation by increasing reimbursement for services provided, but these models have been halted.

Additional efforts to increase cardiac rehabilitation referral and participation include automated order sets, increased caregiver education, and early morning or late evening classes, single-sex classes, home or mobile-based exercise programs, and parking and transportation assistance.³⁴ Grace et al³⁷ reported that referral rates rose to 86% when a cardiac rehabilitation order was integrated into the electronic medical record and combined with a hospital liaison to educate patients about their need for cardiac rehabilitation. Lowering patient copayments would also be a good idea. We have recently seen some creative ways to reduce copayments, including philanthropy and grants.

Cardiac rehabilitation has a class 1 indication (ie, strong recommendation) after heart surgery, myocardial infarction, or coronary intervention, and for stable angina or peripheral artery disease. It has a class 2a indication (ie, moderate recommendation) for stable systolic heart failure. Yet it is still under­utilized despite its demonstrated benefits, endorsement by most recognized cardiovascular societies, and coverage by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Here, we review cardiac rehabilitation—its benefits, appropriate indications, barriers to referral and enrollment, and efforts to increase its use.

EXERCISE: SLOW TO BE ADOPTED

In 1772, William Heberden (also remembered today for describing swelling of the distal interphalangeal joints in osteoarthritis) described¹ a patient with angina pectoris who “set himself a task of sawing wood for half an hour every day, and was nearly cured.”

Despite early clues, it would be some time before the medical community would recognize the benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health. Before the 1930s, immobilization and extended bedrest were encouraged for up to 6 weeks after a cardiovascular event, leading to significant deconditioning.² Things slowly began to change in the 1940s with Levine’s introduction of up-to-chair therapy,³ and short daily walks were introduced in the 1950s. Over time, the link between a sedentary lifestyle and cardiovascular disease was studied and led to greater investigation into the benefits of exercise, propelling us into the modern era.^4,5

CARDIAC REHABILITATION: COMPREHENSIVE RISK REDUCTION

The American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (AACVPR) defines cardiac rehabilitation as the provision of comprehensive long-term services involving medical evaluation, prescriptive exercise, cardiac risk-factor modification, education, counseling, and behavioral interventions.⁶ CMS defines it as a physician-supervised program that furnishes physician-prescribed exercise, cardiac risk-factor modification (including education, counseling, and behavioral intervention), psychosocial assessment, outcomes assessment, and other items and services.⁷

In general, most cardiac rehabilitation programs provide medically supervised exercise and patient education designed to improve cardiac health and functional status. Risk factors are targeted to reduce disability and rates of morbidity and mortality, to improve functional capacity, and to alleviate activity-related symptoms.

FROM HOSPITAL TO SELF-MAINTENANCE

Phase 1: Inpatient rehabilitation

Phase 1 typically takes place in the inpatient setting, often after open heart surgery (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting, valve repair or replacement, heart transplant), myocardial infarction, or percutaneous coronary intervention. This phase may last only a few days, especially in the current era of short hospital stays.

During phase 1, patients discuss their health situation and goals with their primary provider or cardiologist and receive education about recovery and cardiovascular risk factors. Early mobilization to prepare for discharge and to resume simple activities of daily living is emphasized. Depending on the institution, phase 1 exercise may involve simple ambulation on the ward or using equipment such as a stationary bike or treadmill.⁶ Phase 2 enrollment ideally is set up before discharge.

Phase 2: Limited-time outpatient rehabilitation

Phase 2 traditionally takes place in a hospital-based outpatient facility and consists of a physician-supervised multidisciplinary program. Growing evidence shows that home-based cardiac rehabilitation may be as effective as a medical facility-based program and should be an option for patients who have difficulty getting access to a traditional program.⁸

A phase 2 program takes a threefold approach, consisting of exercise, aggressive risk-factor modification, and education classes. A Cochrane review⁹ included programs that also incorporated behavioral modification and psychosocial support as a means of secondary prevention, underscoring the evolving definition of cardiac rehabilitation.

During the initial phase 2 visit, an individualized treatment plan is developed, incorporating an exercise prescription and realistic goals for secondary prevention. Sessions typically take place 3 times a week for up to 36 sessions; usually, options are available for less frequent weekly attendance for a longer period to achieve a full course. In some cases, patients may qualify for up to 72 sessions, particularly if they have not progressed as expected.

Exercise. As part of the initial evaluation, AACVPR guidelines⁶ suggest an exercise test­—eg, a symptom-limited exercise stress test, a 6-minute walk test, or use of a Rating of Perceived Exertion scale. Prescribed exercise generally targets moderate activity in the range of 50% to 70% of peak estimated functional capacity. In the appropriate clinical context, high-functioning patients can be offered high-intensity interval training instead of moderate exercise, as they confer similar benefits.¹⁰

Risk-factor reduction. Comprehensive risk-factor reduction can address smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, and diet, as well as psychosocial issues such as stress, anxiety, depression, and alcohol use. Sexual activity counseling may also be included.

Education classes are aimed at helping patients understand cardiovascular disease and empowering them to manage their medical treatment and lifestyle modifications.⁶

Phase 3: Lifetime maintenance

In phase 3, patients independently continue risk-factor modification and physical activity without cardiac monitoring. Most cardiac rehabilitation programs offer transition-to-maintenance classes after completion of phase 2; this may be a welcome option, particularly for those who have developed a good routine and rapport with the staff and other participants. Others may opt for an independent program, using their own home equipment or a local health club.

EXERCISE: MOSTLY SAFE, WITH PROVEN BENEFITS

The safety of cardiac rehabilitation is well established, with a low risk of major cardiovascular complications. A US study in the early 1980s of 167 cardiac rehabilitation programs found 1 cardiac arrest for every 111,996 exercise hours, 1 myocardial infarction per 293,990 exercise hours, and 1 fatality per 783,972 exercise hours.¹¹ A 2006 study of more than 65 cardiac rehabilitation centers in France found 1 cardiac event per 8,484 exercise tests and 1.3 cardiac arrests per 1 million exercise hours.¹²

The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation are numerous and substantial.^9,13–17 A 2016 Cochrane review and meta-analysis of 63 randomized controlled trials with 14,486 participants found a reduced rate of cardiovascular mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64–0.86), with a number needed to treat of 37, and fewer hospital re­admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70–0.96).⁹

Reductions in mortality rates are dose-dependent. A study of more than 30,000 Medicare beneficiaries who participated in cardiac rehabilitation found that those who attended more sessions had a lower rate of morbidity and death at 4 years, particularly if they participated in more than 11 sessions. Those who attended the full 36 sessions had a mortality rate 47% lower than those who attended a single session.¹⁷ There was a 15% reduction in mortality for those who attended 36 sessions compared with 24 sessions, a 28% lower risk with attending 36 sessions compared with 12. After adjustment, each additional 6 sessions was associated with a 6% reduction in mortality. The curves continued to separate up to 4 years.

The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation go beyond risk reduction and include improved functional capacity, greater ease with activities of daily living, and improved quality of life.⁹ Patients receive structure and support from the management team and other participants, which may provide an additional layer of friendship and psychosocial support for making lifestyle changes.

Is the overall mortality rate improved?

In the modern era, with access to optimal medical therapy and drug-eluting stents, one might expect only small additional benefit from cardiac rehabilitation. The 2016 Cochrane review and meta-analysis found that although cardiac rehabilitation contributed to improved cardiovascular mortality rates and health-related quality of life, no significant reduction was detected in the rate of death from all causes.⁸ But the analysis did not necessarily support removing the claim of reduced all-cause mortality for cardiac rehabilitation: only randomized controlled trials were examined, and the quality of evidence for each outcome was deemed to be low to moderate because of a general paucity of reports, including many small trials that followed patients for less than 12 months.

A large cohort analysis¹⁵ with more than 73,000 patients who had undergone cardiac rehabilitation found a relative reduction in mortality rate of 58% at 1 year and 21% to 34% at 5 years, with elderly women gaining the most benefit. In the Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION) trial, with more than 2,300 patients followed for a median of 2.5 years, exercise training for heart failure was associated with reduced rates of all-cause mortality or hospitalization (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.99; P = .03) and of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.99; P = .03).¹⁸

Regardless of the precise reduction in all-cause mortality, the cardiovascular and health-quality outcomes of cardiac rehabilitation clearly indicate benefit. More trials with follow-up longer than 1 year are needed to definitively determine the impact of cardiac rehabilitation on the all-cause mortality rate.

WHO SHOULD BE OFFERED CARDIAC REHABILITATION?

The 2006 CMS coverage criteria listed the indications for cardiac rehabilitation as myocardial infarction within the preceding 12 months, coronary artery bypass surgery, stable angina pectoris, heart valve repair or replacement, percutaneous coronary intervention, and heart or heart-lung transplant.

In 2014, stable chronic systolic heart failure was added to the list (Table 2). Qualifications include New York Heart Association class II (mild symptoms, slight limitation of activity) to class IV (severe limitations, symptoms at rest), an ejection fraction of 35% or less, and being stable on optimal medical therapy for at least 6 weeks.

In 2017, CMS approved supervised exercise therapy for peripheral arterial disease. Supervised exercise has a class 1 recommendation by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for treating intermittent claudication. Supervised exercise therapy can increase walking distance by 180% and is superior to medical therapy alone. Unsupervised exercise has a class 2b recommendation.^19,20

Other patients may not qualify for phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation according to CMS or private insurance but could benefit from an exercise prescription and enrollment in a local phase 3 or home exercise program. Indications might include diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, atrial fibrillation, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation after newer, less-invasive procedures for transcatheter valve repair and replacement are not well established, and more research is needed in this area.

WHEN TO REFER

Ades et al have defined cardiac rehabilitation referral as a combination of electronic medical records order, patient-physician discussion, and receipt of an order by a cardiac rehabilitation program.²¹

Ideally, referral for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation should take place at the time of hospital discharge. The AACVPR endorses a “cardiovascular continuum of care” model that emphasizes a smooth transition from inpatient to outpatient programs.⁶ Inpatient referral is a strong predictor of cardiac rehabilitation enrollment, and lack of referral in phase 1 negatively affects enrollment rates.

Depending on the diagnosis, US and Canadian guidelines recommend cardiac rehabilitation starting within 1 to 4 weeks of the index event, with acceptable wait times up to 60 days.^6,22 In the United Kingdom, referral is recommended within 24 hours of patient eligibility; assessment for a cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation program, with a defined pathway and individual goals, is expected to be completed within 10 working days of referral.²³ Such a standard is difficult to meet in the United States, where the time from hospital discharge to cardiac rehabilitation program enrollment averages 35 days.^24,25

After an uncomplicated myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention, patients with a normal or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction should start outpatient cardiac rehabilitation within 14 days of the index event. For such cases, cardiac rehabilitation has been shown to be safe within 1 to 2 weeks of hospital discharge and is associated with increased participation rates.

REHABILITATION IS STILL UNDERUSED

Despite its significant benefits, cardiac rehabilitation is underused for many reasons.

Referral rates vary

A study using the 1997 Medicare claims data­base showed national referral rates of only 14% after myocardial infarction and 31% after coronary artery bypass grafting.³¹

A later study using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry between 2009 and 2017 found that the situation had improved, with a referral rate of about 60% for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.³² Nevertheless, referral rates for cardiac rehabilitation remain highly variable and still lag behind other CMS quality measures for optimal medical therapy after acute myocardial infarction (Figure 1). Factors associated with higher referral rates included ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, care in a high-volume center for percutaneous coronary intervention, and care in a private or community hospital in a Midwestern state. Small Midwestern hospitals generally had referral rates of over 80%, while major teaching hospitals and hospital systems on the East Coast and the West Coast had referral rates of less than 20%. Unlike some studies, this study found that insurance status had little bearing on referral rates.

Other studies found lower referral rates for women and patients with comorbidities such as previous coronary artery bypass grafting, diabetes, and heart failure.^33,34

In the United Kingdom, patients with heart failure made up only 5% of patients in cardiac rehabilitation; only 7% to 20% of patients with a heart failure diagnosis were referred to cardiac rehabilitation from general and cardiology wards.³⁵

Enrollment, completion rates even lower

Rates of referral for cardiac rehabilitation do not equate to rates of enrollment or participation. Enrollment was 50% in the United Kingdom in 2016.³⁵ A 2015 US study evaluated 58,269 older patients eligible for cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction;  62% were referred for cardiac rehabilitation at the time of discharge, but only 23% of the total attended at least 1 session, and just 5% of the total completed 36 or more sessions.³⁶

BARRIERS, OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE

The underuse of cardiac rehabilitation in the United States has led to an American Heart Association presidential advisory on the referral, enrollment, and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation.³⁴ Dozens of barriers are mentioned, with several standing out as having the largest impact: lack of physician referral, weak endorsement by the prescribing provider, female sex of patients, lack of program availability, work-related hardship, low socioeconomic status, and lack of or limited healthcare insurance. Copayments have also become a major barrier, often ranging from $20 to $40 per session for patients with Medicare.

The Million Hearts Initiative has established a goal of 70% cardiac rehabilitation compliance for eligible patients by 2022, a goal they estimate could save 25,000 lives and prevent 180,000 hospitalizations annually.²¹

Lack of physician awareness and lack of referral may be the most modifiable factors with the capacity to have the largest impact. Increasing physician awareness is a top priority not only for primary care providers, but also for cardiologists. In 2014, CMS made referral for cardiac rehabilitation a quality measure that is trackable and reportable. CMS has also proposed models that would incentivize participation by increasing reimbursement for services provided, but these models have been halted.

Additional efforts to increase cardiac rehabilitation referral and participation include automated order sets, increased caregiver education, and early morning or late evening classes, single-sex classes, home or mobile-based exercise programs, and parking and transportation assistance.³⁴ Grace et al³⁷ reported that referral rates rose to 86% when a cardiac rehabilitation order was integrated into the electronic medical record and combined with a hospital liaison to educate patients about their need for cardiac rehabilitation. Lowering patient copayments would also be a good idea. We have recently seen some creative ways to reduce copayments, including philanthropy and grants.

Cardiac rehabilitation has a class 1 indication (ie, strong recommendation) after heart surgery, myocardial infarction, or coronary intervention, and for stable angina or peripheral artery disease. It has a class 2a indication (ie, moderate recommendation) for stable systolic heart failure. Yet it is still under­utilized despite its demonstrated benefits, endorsement by most recognized cardiovascular societies, and coverage by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Here, we review cardiac rehabilitation—its benefits, appropriate indications, barriers to referral and enrollment, and efforts to increase its use.

EXERCISE: SLOW TO BE ADOPTED

In 1772, William Heberden (also remembered today for describing swelling of the distal interphalangeal joints in osteoarthritis) described¹ a patient with angina pectoris who “set himself a task of sawing wood for half an hour every day, and was nearly cured.”

Despite early clues, it would be some time before the medical community would recognize the benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health. Before the 1930s, immobilization and extended bedrest were encouraged for up to 6 weeks after a cardiovascular event, leading to significant deconditioning.² Things slowly began to change in the 1940s with Levine’s introduction of up-to-chair therapy,³ and short daily walks were introduced in the 1950s. Over time, the link between a sedentary lifestyle and cardiovascular disease was studied and led to greater investigation into the benefits of exercise, propelling us into the modern era.^4,5

CARDIAC REHABILITATION: COMPREHENSIVE RISK REDUCTION

The American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (AACVPR) defines cardiac rehabilitation as the provision of comprehensive long-term services involving medical evaluation, prescriptive exercise, cardiac risk-factor modification, education, counseling, and behavioral interventions.⁶ CMS defines it as a physician-supervised program that furnishes physician-prescribed exercise, cardiac risk-factor modification (including education, counseling, and behavioral intervention), psychosocial assessment, outcomes assessment, and other items and services.⁷

In general, most cardiac rehabilitation programs provide medically supervised exercise and patient education designed to improve cardiac health and functional status. Risk factors are targeted to reduce disability and rates of morbidity and mortality, to improve functional capacity, and to alleviate activity-related symptoms.

FROM HOSPITAL TO SELF-MAINTENANCE

Phase 1: Inpatient rehabilitation

Phase 1 typically takes place in the inpatient setting, often after open heart surgery (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting, valve repair or replacement, heart transplant), myocardial infarction, or percutaneous coronary intervention. This phase may last only a few days, especially in the current era of short hospital stays.

During phase 1, patients discuss their health situation and goals with their primary provider or cardiologist and receive education about recovery and cardiovascular risk factors. Early mobilization to prepare for discharge and to resume simple activities of daily living is emphasized. Depending on the institution, phase 1 exercise may involve simple ambulation on the ward or using equipment such as a stationary bike or treadmill.⁶ Phase 2 enrollment ideally is set up before discharge.

Phase 2: Limited-time outpatient rehabilitation

Phase 2 traditionally takes place in a hospital-based outpatient facility and consists of a physician-supervised multidisciplinary program. Growing evidence shows that home-based cardiac rehabilitation may be as effective as a medical facility-based program and should be an option for patients who have difficulty getting access to a traditional program.⁸

A phase 2 program takes a threefold approach, consisting of exercise, aggressive risk-factor modification, and education classes. A Cochrane review⁹ included programs that also incorporated behavioral modification and psychosocial support as a means of secondary prevention, underscoring the evolving definition of cardiac rehabilitation.

During the initial phase 2 visit, an individualized treatment plan is developed, incorporating an exercise prescription and realistic goals for secondary prevention. Sessions typically take place 3 times a week for up to 36 sessions; usually, options are available for less frequent weekly attendance for a longer period to achieve a full course. In some cases, patients may qualify for up to 72 sessions, particularly if they have not progressed as expected.

Exercise. As part of the initial evaluation, AACVPR guidelines⁶ suggest an exercise test­—eg, a symptom-limited exercise stress test, a 6-minute walk test, or use of a Rating of Perceived Exertion scale. Prescribed exercise generally targets moderate activity in the range of 50% to 70% of peak estimated functional capacity. In the appropriate clinical context, high-functioning patients can be offered high-intensity interval training instead of moderate exercise, as they confer similar benefits.¹⁰

Risk-factor reduction. Comprehensive risk-factor reduction can address smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, and diet, as well as psychosocial issues such as stress, anxiety, depression, and alcohol use. Sexual activity counseling may also be included.

Education classes are aimed at helping patients understand cardiovascular disease and empowering them to manage their medical treatment and lifestyle modifications.⁶

Phase 3: Lifetime maintenance

In phase 3, patients independently continue risk-factor modification and physical activity without cardiac monitoring. Most cardiac rehabilitation programs offer transition-to-maintenance classes after completion of phase 2; this may be a welcome option, particularly for those who have developed a good routine and rapport with the staff and other participants. Others may opt for an independent program, using their own home equipment or a local health club.

EXERCISE: MOSTLY SAFE, WITH PROVEN BENEFITS

The safety of cardiac rehabilitation is well established, with a low risk of major cardiovascular complications. A US study in the early 1980s of 167 cardiac rehabilitation programs found 1 cardiac arrest for every 111,996 exercise hours, 1 myocardial infarction per 293,990 exercise hours, and 1 fatality per 783,972 exercise hours.¹¹ A 2006 study of more than 65 cardiac rehabilitation centers in France found 1 cardiac event per 8,484 exercise tests and 1.3 cardiac arrests per 1 million exercise hours.¹²

The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation are numerous and substantial.^9,13–17 A 2016 Cochrane review and meta-analysis of 63 randomized controlled trials with 14,486 participants found a reduced rate of cardiovascular mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64–0.86), with a number needed to treat of 37, and fewer hospital re­admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70–0.96).⁹

Reductions in mortality rates are dose-dependent. A study of more than 30,000 Medicare beneficiaries who participated in cardiac rehabilitation found that those who attended more sessions had a lower rate of morbidity and death at 4 years, particularly if they participated in more than 11 sessions. Those who attended the full 36 sessions had a mortality rate 47% lower than those who attended a single session.¹⁷ There was a 15% reduction in mortality for those who attended 36 sessions compared with 24 sessions, a 28% lower risk with attending 36 sessions compared with 12. After adjustment, each additional 6 sessions was associated with a 6% reduction in mortality. The curves continued to separate up to 4 years.

The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation go beyond risk reduction and include improved functional capacity, greater ease with activities of daily living, and improved quality of life.⁹ Patients receive structure and support from the management team and other participants, which may provide an additional layer of friendship and psychosocial support for making lifestyle changes.

Is the overall mortality rate improved?

In the modern era, with access to optimal medical therapy and drug-eluting stents, one might expect only small additional benefit from cardiac rehabilitation. The 2016 Cochrane review and meta-analysis found that although cardiac rehabilitation contributed to improved cardiovascular mortality rates and health-related quality of life, no significant reduction was detected in the rate of death from all causes.⁸ But the analysis did not necessarily support removing the claim of reduced all-cause mortality for cardiac rehabilitation: only randomized controlled trials were examined, and the quality of evidence for each outcome was deemed to be low to moderate because of a general paucity of reports, including many small trials that followed patients for less than 12 months.

A large cohort analysis¹⁵ with more than 73,000 patients who had undergone cardiac rehabilitation found a relative reduction in mortality rate of 58% at 1 year and 21% to 34% at 5 years, with elderly women gaining the most benefit. In the Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION) trial, with more than 2,300 patients followed for a median of 2.5 years, exercise training for heart failure was associated with reduced rates of all-cause mortality or hospitalization (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.99; P = .03) and of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.99; P = .03).¹⁸

Regardless of the precise reduction in all-cause mortality, the cardiovascular and health-quality outcomes of cardiac rehabilitation clearly indicate benefit. More trials with follow-up longer than 1 year are needed to definitively determine the impact of cardiac rehabilitation on the all-cause mortality rate.

WHO SHOULD BE OFFERED CARDIAC REHABILITATION?

The 2006 CMS coverage criteria listed the indications for cardiac rehabilitation as myocardial infarction within the preceding 12 months, coronary artery bypass surgery, stable angina pectoris, heart valve repair or replacement, percutaneous coronary intervention, and heart or heart-lung transplant.

In 2014, stable chronic systolic heart failure was added to the list (Table 2). Qualifications include New York Heart Association class II (mild symptoms, slight limitation of activity) to class IV (severe limitations, symptoms at rest), an ejection fraction of 35% or less, and being stable on optimal medical therapy for at least 6 weeks.

In 2017, CMS approved supervised exercise therapy for peripheral arterial disease. Supervised exercise has a class 1 recommendation by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for treating intermittent claudication. Supervised exercise therapy can increase walking distance by 180% and is superior to medical therapy alone. Unsupervised exercise has a class 2b recommendation.^19,20

Other patients may not qualify for phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation according to CMS or private insurance but could benefit from an exercise prescription and enrollment in a local phase 3 or home exercise program. Indications might include diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, atrial fibrillation, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation after newer, less-invasive procedures for transcatheter valve repair and replacement are not well established, and more research is needed in this area.

WHEN TO REFER

Ades et al have defined cardiac rehabilitation referral as a combination of electronic medical records order, patient-physician discussion, and receipt of an order by a cardiac rehabilitation program.²¹

Ideally, referral for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation should take place at the time of hospital discharge. The AACVPR endorses a “cardiovascular continuum of care” model that emphasizes a smooth transition from inpatient to outpatient programs.⁶ Inpatient referral is a strong predictor of cardiac rehabilitation enrollment, and lack of referral in phase 1 negatively affects enrollment rates.

Depending on the diagnosis, US and Canadian guidelines recommend cardiac rehabilitation starting within 1 to 4 weeks of the index event, with acceptable wait times up to 60 days.^6,22 In the United Kingdom, referral is recommended within 24 hours of patient eligibility; assessment for a cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation program, with a defined pathway and individual goals, is expected to be completed within 10 working days of referral.²³ Such a standard is difficult to meet in the United States, where the time from hospital discharge to cardiac rehabilitation program enrollment averages 35 days.^24,25

After an uncomplicated myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention, patients with a normal or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction should start outpatient cardiac rehabilitation within 14 days of the index event. For such cases, cardiac rehabilitation has been shown to be safe within 1 to 2 weeks of hospital discharge and is associated with increased participation rates.

REHABILITATION IS STILL UNDERUSED

Despite its significant benefits, cardiac rehabilitation is underused for many reasons.

Referral rates vary

A study using the 1997 Medicare claims data­base showed national referral rates of only 14% after myocardial infarction and 31% after coronary artery bypass grafting.³¹

A later study using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry between 2009 and 2017 found that the situation had improved, with a referral rate of about 60% for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.³² Nevertheless, referral rates for cardiac rehabilitation remain highly variable and still lag behind other CMS quality measures for optimal medical therapy after acute myocardial infarction (Figure 1). Factors associated with higher referral rates included ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, care in a high-volume center for percutaneous coronary intervention, and care in a private or community hospital in a Midwestern state. Small Midwestern hospitals generally had referral rates of over 80%, while major teaching hospitals and hospital systems on the East Coast and the West Coast had referral rates of less than 20%. Unlike some studies, this study found that insurance status had little bearing on referral rates.

Other studies found lower referral rates for women and patients with comorbidities such as previous coronary artery bypass grafting, diabetes, and heart failure.^33,34

In the United Kingdom, patients with heart failure made up only 5% of patients in cardiac rehabilitation; only 7% to 20% of patients with a heart failure diagnosis were referred to cardiac rehabilitation from general and cardiology wards.³⁵

Enrollment, completion rates even lower

Rates of referral for cardiac rehabilitation do not equate to rates of enrollment or participation. Enrollment was 50% in the United Kingdom in 2016.³⁵ A 2015 US study evaluated 58,269 older patients eligible for cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction;  62% were referred for cardiac rehabilitation at the time of discharge, but only 23% of the total attended at least 1 session, and just 5% of the total completed 36 or more sessions.³⁶

BARRIERS, OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE

The underuse of cardiac rehabilitation in the United States has led to an American Heart Association presidential advisory on the referral, enrollment, and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation.³⁴ Dozens of barriers are mentioned, with several standing out as having the largest impact: lack of physician referral, weak endorsement by the prescribing provider, female sex of patients, lack of program availability, work-related hardship, low socioeconomic status, and lack of or limited healthcare insurance. Copayments have also become a major barrier, often ranging from $20 to $40 per session for patients with Medicare.

The Million Hearts Initiative has established a goal of 70% cardiac rehabilitation compliance for eligible patients by 2022, a goal they estimate could save 25,000 lives and prevent 180,000 hospitalizations annually.²¹

Lack of physician awareness and lack of referral may be the most modifiable factors with the capacity to have the largest impact. Increasing physician awareness is a top priority not only for primary care providers, but also for cardiologists. In 2014, CMS made referral for cardiac rehabilitation a quality measure that is trackable and reportable. CMS has also proposed models that would incentivize participation by increasing reimbursement for services provided, but these models have been halted.

Additional efforts to increase cardiac rehabilitation referral and participation include automated order sets, increased caregiver education, and early morning or late evening classes, single-sex classes, home or mobile-based exercise programs, and parking and transportation assistance.³⁴ Grace et al³⁷ reported that referral rates rose to 86% when a cardiac rehabilitation order was integrated into the electronic medical record and combined with a hospital liaison to educate patients about their need for cardiac rehabilitation. Lowering patient copayments would also be a good idea. We have recently seen some creative ways to reduce copayments, including philanthropy and grants.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is estimated to affect 14% of Americans, but it is likely underdiagnosed because it is often asymptomatic.^1,2 Its prevalence is even higher in patients who undergo surgery—up to 30% in cardiac surgery.³ Its impact on surgical outcomes is substantial.⁴ Importantly, patients with CKD are at higher risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI), which is also associated with adverse outcomes. Thus, it is important to recognize, assess, and manage abnormal renal function in surgical patients.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES?

Cardiac surgery outcomes

Moreover, in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the worse the renal dysfunction, the higher the long-term mortality rate. Patients with moderate (stage 3) CKD had a 3.5 times higher odds of in-hospital mortality compared with patients with normal renal function, rising to 8.8 with severe (stage 4) and to 9.6 with dialysis-dependent (stage 5) CKD.¹¹

The mechanisms linking CKD with negative cardiac outcomes are unclear, but many possibilities exist. CKD is an independent risk factor for coronary artery disease and shares underlying risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes. Cardiac surgery patients with CKD are also more likely to have diabetes, left ventricular dysfunction, and peripheral vascular disease.

Noncardiac surgery outcomes

CKD is also associated with adverse outcomes in noncardiac surgery patients, especially at higher levels of renal dysfunction.^12–14 For example, in patients who underwent major noncardiac surgery, compared with patients in stage 1 (estimated GFR > 90 mL/min/1.73 m²), the odds ratios for all-cause mortality were as follows:

• 0.8 for patients with stage 2 CKD
• 2.2 in stage 3a
• 2.8 in stage 3b
• 11.3 in stage 4
• 5.8 in stage 5.¹⁴

The association between estimated GFR and all-cause mortality was not statistically significant (P = .071), but statistically significant associations were observed between estimated GFR and major adverse cardiovascular events (P < .001) and hospital length of stay (P < .001).

The association of CKD with major adverse outcomes and death in both cardiac and noncardiac surgical patients demonstrates the importance of understanding this risk, identifying patients with CKD preoperatively, and taking steps to lower the risk.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY?

AKI is a common and serious complication of surgery, especially cardiac surgery. It has been associated with higher rates of morbidity, mortality, and cardiovascular events, longer hospital length of stay, and higher cost.

Several groups have proposed criteria for defining AKI and its severity; the KDIGO criteria are the most widely accepted.¹⁵ These define AKI as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of 0.3 mg/dL or more within 48 hours or at least 1.5 times the baseline value within 7 days, or urine volume less than 0.5 mL/kg/hour for more than 6 hours. There are 3 stages of severity:

• Stage 1—an increase in serum creatinine of 1.5 to 1.9 times baseline, an absolute increase of at least 0.3 mg/dL, or urine output less than 0.5 mL/kg/hour for 6 to 12 hours
• Stage 2—an increase in serum creatinine of 2.0 to 2.9 times baseline or urine output less than 0.5 mmL/kg/hour for 12 or more hours
• Stage 3—an increase in serum creatinine of 3 times baseline, an absolute increase of at least 4 mg/dL, initiation of renal replacement therapy, urine output less than 0.3 mL/kg/hour for 24 or more hours, or anuria for 12 or more hours.¹⁵

Multiple factors associated with surgery may contribute to AKI, including hemodynamic instability, volume shifts, blood loss, use of heart-lung bypass, new medications, activation of the inflammatory cascade, oxidative stress, and anemia.

AKI in cardiac surgery

The incidence of AKI is high in cardiac surgery. In a meta-analysis of 46 studies (N = 242,000), its incidence in cardiopulmonary bypass surgery was about 18%, with 2.1% of patients needing renal replacement therapy.¹⁶ However, the incidence varied considerably from study to study, ranging from 1% to 53%, and was influenced by the definition of AKI, the type of cardiac surgery, and the patient population.¹⁶

Cardiac surgery-associated AKI adversely affects outcomes. Several studies have shown that cardiac surgery patients who develop AKI have higher rates of death and stroke.^16–21 More severe AKI confers higher mortality rates, with the highest mortality rate in patients who need renal replacement therapy, approximately 37%.¹⁷ Patients with cardiac surgery-associated AKI also have a longer hospital length of stay and significantly higher costs of care.^17,18

Long-term outcomes are also negatively affected by AKI. In cardiac surgery patients with AKI who had completely recovered renal function by the time they left the hospital, the 2-year incidence rate of CKD was 6.8%, significantly higher than the 0.2% rate in patients who did not develop AKI.¹⁹ The 2-year survival rates also were significantly worse for patients who developed postoperative AKI (82.3% vs 93.7%). Similarly, in patients undergoing CABG who had normal renal function before surgery, those who developed AKI postoperatively had significantly shorter long-term survival rates.²⁰ The effect does not require a large change in renal function. An increase in creatinine as small as 0.3 mg/dL has been associated with a higher rate of death and a long-term risk of end-stage renal disease that is 3 times higher.²¹

Cardiac surgery

CKD is a risk factor not only after cardiac surgery but also after percutaneous procedures. In a meta-analysis of 4,992 patients with CKD who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement, both moderate and severe CKD increased the odds of AKI, early stroke, the need for dialysis, and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at 1 year.^22,23 Increased rates of AKI also have been found in patients with CKD undergoing CABG surgery.²⁴ These results point to a synergistic effect between AKI and CKD, with outcomes much worse in combination than alone.

In cardiac surgery, the most important patient risk factors associated with a higher incidence of postoperative AKI are age older than 75, CKD, preoperative heart failure, and prior myocardial infarction.^19,25 Diabetes is an additional independent risk factor, with type 1 conferring higher risk than type 2.²⁶ Preoperative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors may or may not be a risk factor for cardiac surgery-associated AKI, with some studies finding increased risk and others finding reduced rates.^27,28

Anemia, which may be related to either patient or surgical risk factors (eg, intraoperative blood loss), also increases the risk of AKI in cardiac surgery.^29,30 A retrospective study of CABG surgery patients found that intraoperative hemoglobin levels below 8 g/dL were associated with a 25% to 30% incidence of AKI, compared with 15% to 20% with hemoglobin levels above 9 g/dL.²⁹ Additionally, having severe hypotension (mean arterial pressure < 50 mm Hg) significantly increased the AKI rates in the low-hemoglobin group.²⁹ Similar results were reported in a later study.³⁰

Among surgical factors, several randomized controlled trials have shown that off-pump CABG is associated with a significantly lower risk of postoperative AKI than on-pump CABG; however, this difference did not translate into any long-term difference in mortality rates.^31,32 Longer cardiopulmonary bypass time is strongly associated with a higher incidence of AKI and postoperative death.³³

Noncardiac surgery

AKI is less common after noncardiac surgery; however, outcomes are severe in patients in whom it occurs. In a study of 15,102 noncardiac surgery patients, only 0.8% developed AKI and 0.1% required renal replacement therapy.³⁴

Risk factors after noncardiac surgery are similar to those after cardiac surgery (Table 3).^34–36 Factors with the greatest impact are older age, peripheral vascular occlusive disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease necessitating chronic bronchodilator therapy, high-risk surgery, hepatic disease, emergent or urgent surgery, and high body mass index.

Surgical risk factors include total vasopressor dose administered, use of a vasopressor infusion, and diuretic administration.³⁴ In addition, intraoperative hypotension is associated with a higher risk of AKI, major adverse cardiac events, and 30-day mortality.³⁷

Noncardiac surgery patients with postoperative AKI have significantly higher rates of 30-day readmissions, 1-year progression to end-stage renal disease, and mortality than patients who do not develop AKI.³⁵ Additionally, patients with AKI have significantly higher rates of cardiovascular complications (33.3% vs 11.3%) and death (6.1% vs 0.9%), as well as a significantly longer length of hospital stay.^34,36

CAN WE DECREASE THE IMPACT OF RENAL DISEASE IN SURGERY?

Before surgery, practitioners need to identify patients at risk of AKI, implement possible risk-reduction measures, and, afterward, treat it early in its course if it occurs.

The preoperative visit is the ideal time to assess a patient’s risk of postoperative renal dysfunction. Laboratory tests can identify risks based on surgery type, age, hypertension, the presence of CKD, and medications that affect renal function. However, the basic chemistry panel is abnormal in only 8.2% of patients and affects management in just 2.6%, requiring the clinician to target testing to patients at high risk.³⁸

Patients with a significant degree of renal dysfunction, particularly those previously undiagnosed, may benefit from additional preoperative testing and medication management. Perioperative management of medications that could adversely affect renal function should be carefully considered during the preoperative visit. In addition, the postoperative inpatient team needs to be informed about potentially nephrotoxic medications and medications that are renally cleared. Attention needs to be given to the renal impact of common perioperative medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, intravenous contrast, low-molecular-weight heparins, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers. With the emphasis on opioid-sparing analgesics, it is particularly important to assess the risk of AKI if nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are part of the pain control plan.

Nephrology referral may help, especially for patients with a GFR less than 45 mL/min. This information enables more informed decision-making regarding the risks of adverse outcomes related to kidney disease.

WHAT TOOLS DO WE HAVE TO DIAGNOSE RENAL INJURY?

Several risk-prediction models have been developed to assess the postoperative risk of AKI in both cardiac and major noncardiac surgery patients. Although these models can identify risk factors, their clinical accuracy and utility have been questioned.

Biomarkers

Early diagnosis is the first step in managing AKI, allowing time to implement measures to minimize its impact.

Serum creatinine testing is widely used to measure renal function and diagnose AKI; however, it does not detect small reductions in renal function, and there is a time lag between renal insult and a rise in creatinine. The result is a delay to diagnosis of AKI.

Biomarkers other than creatinine have been studied for early detection of intraoperative and postoperative renal insult. These novel renal injury markers include the following:

Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL). Two studies looked at plasma NGAL as an early marker of AKI in patients with CKD who were undergoing cardiac surgery.^39,40 One study found that by using NGAL instead of creatinine, postoperative AKI could be diagnosed an average of 20 hours earlier.³⁹ In addition, NGAL helped detect renal recovery earlier than creatinine.⁴⁰ The diagnostic cut-off values of NGAL were different for patients with CKD than for those without CKD.^39,40

Other novel markers include:

• Kidney injury marker 1
• N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase
• Cysteine C.

Although these biomarkers show some ability to detect renal injury, they provide only modest discrimination and are not widely available for clinical use.⁴¹ Current evidence does not support routine use of these markers in clinical settings.

Interventions to prevent or ameliorate the impact of CKD and AKI on surgical outcomes have been studied most extensively in cardiac surgery patients.

Aspirin. A retrospective study of 3,585 cardiac surgery patients with CKD found that preoperative aspirin use significantly lowered the incidence of postoperative AKI and 30-day mortality compared with patients not using aspirin.⁴² Aspirin use reduced 30-day mortality in CKD stages 1, 2, and 3 by 23.3%, 58%, and 70%, respectively. On the other hand, in the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE) trial, in noncardiac surgery patients, neither aspirin nor clonidine started 2 to 4 hours preoperatively and continued up to 30 days after surgery altered the risk of AKI significantly more than placebo.⁴³

Statins have been ineffective in reducing the incidence of AKI in cardiac surgery patients. In fact, a meta-analysis of 8 interventional trials found an increased incidence of AKI in patients in whom statins were started perioperatively.⁴⁴ Erythropoietin was also found to be ineffective in the prevention of perioperative AKI in cardiac surgery patients in a separate study.⁴⁵

The evidence regarding other therapies has also varied.

N-acetylcysteine in high doses reduced the incidence of AKI in patients with CKD stage 3 and 4 undergoing CABG.⁴⁶ Another meta-analysis of 10 studies in cardiac surgery patients published recently did not show any benefit of N-acetylcysteine in reducing AKI.⁴⁷

Human atrial natriuretic peptide, given preoperatively to patients with CKD, reduced the acute and long-term creatinine rise as well as the number of cardiac events after CABG; however, it did not reduce mortality rates.⁴⁸

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, given preoperatively to patients with heart failure was associated with a decrease in the incidence of AKI in 1 study.⁴⁹

Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective alpha 2 adrenoreceptor agonist. A recent meta-analysis of 10 clinical trials found it beneficial in reducing the risk of perioperative AKI in cardiac surgery patients.⁵⁰ An earlier meta-analysis had similar results.⁵¹

Levosimendan is an inotropic vasodilator that improves cardiac output and renal perfusion in patients with systolic heart failure, and it has been hypothesized to decrease the risk of AKI after cardiac surgery. Previous data demonstrated that this drug reduced AKI and mortality; however, analysis was limited by small sample size and varying definitions of AKI.⁵² A recent meta-analysis showed that levosimendan was associated with a lower incidence of AKI but was also associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation and no reduction in 30-day mortality.⁵³

Remote ischemic preconditioning is a procedure that subjects the kidneys to brief episodes of ischemia before surgery, protecting them when they are later subjected to prolonged ischemia or reperfusion injury. It has shown initial promising results in preventing AKI. In a randomized controlled trial in 240 patients at high risk of AKI, those who received remote ischemic preconditioning had an AKI incidence of 37.5% compared with 52.5% for controls (P = .02); however, the mortality rate was the same.⁵⁴ Similarly, remote ischemic preconditioning significantly lowered the incidence of AKI in nondiabetic patients undergoing CABG surgery compared with controls.⁵⁵

Fluid management. Renal perfusion is intimately related to the development of AKI, and there is evidence that both hypovolemia and excessive fluid resuscitation can increase the risk of AKI in noncardiac surgery patients.⁵⁶ Because of this, fluid management has also received attention in perioperative AKI. Goal-directed fluid management has been evaluated in noncardiac surgery patients, and it did not show any benefit in preventing AKI.⁵⁷ However, in a more recent retrospective study, postoperative positive fluid balance was associated with increased incidence of AKI compared with zero fluid balance. Negative fluid balance did not appear to have a detrimental effect.⁵⁸

RECOMMENDATIONS

No prophylactic therapy has yet been shown to definitively decrease the risk of postoperative AKI in all patients. Nevertheless, it is important to identify patients at risk during the preoperative visit, especially those with CKD. Many patients undergoing surgery have CKD, placing them at high risk of developing AKI in the perioperative period. The risk is particularly high with cardiac surgery.

Serum creatinine and urine output should be closely monitored perioperatively in at-risk patients. If AKI is diagnosed, practitioners need to identify and ameliorate the cause as early as possible.

Recommendations from KDIGO for perioperative prevention and management of AKI are listed in Table 4.¹⁵ These include avoiding additional nephrotoxic medications and adjusting the doses of renally cleared medications. Also, some patients may benefit from preoperative counseling and specialist referral.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is estimated to affect 14% of Americans, but it is likely underdiagnosed because it is often asymptomatic.^1,2 Its prevalence is even higher in patients who undergo surgery—up to 30% in cardiac surgery.³ Its impact on surgical outcomes is substantial.⁴ Importantly, patients with CKD are at higher risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI), which is also associated with adverse outcomes. Thus, it is important to recognize, assess, and manage abnormal renal function in surgical patients.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES?

Cardiac surgery outcomes

Moreover, in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the worse the renal dysfunction, the higher the long-term mortality rate. Patients with moderate (stage 3) CKD had a 3.5 times higher odds of in-hospital mortality compared with patients with normal renal function, rising to 8.8 with severe (stage 4) and to 9.6 with dialysis-dependent (stage 5) CKD.¹¹

The mechanisms linking CKD with negative cardiac outcomes are unclear, but many possibilities exist. CKD is an independent risk factor for coronary artery disease and shares underlying risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes. Cardiac surgery patients with CKD are also more likely to have diabetes, left ventricular dysfunction, and peripheral vascular disease.

Noncardiac surgery outcomes

CKD is also associated with adverse outcomes in noncardiac surgery patients, especially at higher levels of renal dysfunction.^12–14 For example, in patients who underwent major noncardiac surgery, compared with patients in stage 1 (estimated GFR > 90 mL/min/1.73 m²), the odds ratios for all-cause mortality were as follows:

• 0.8 for patients with stage 2 CKD
• 2.2 in stage 3a
• 2.8 in stage 3b
• 11.3 in stage 4
• 5.8 in stage 5.¹⁴

The association between estimated GFR and all-cause mortality was not statistically significant (P = .071), but statistically significant associations were observed between estimated GFR and major adverse cardiovascular events (P < .001) and hospital length of stay (P < .001).

The association of CKD with major adverse outcomes and death in both cardiac and noncardiac surgical patients demonstrates the importance of understanding this risk, identifying patients with CKD preoperatively, and taking steps to lower the risk.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY?

AKI is a common and serious complication of surgery, especially cardiac surgery. It has been associated with higher rates of morbidity, mortality, and cardiovascular events, longer hospital length of stay, and higher cost.

Several groups have proposed criteria for defining AKI and its severity; the KDIGO criteria are the most widely accepted.¹⁵ These define AKI as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of 0.3 mg/dL or more within 48 hours or at least 1.5 times the baseline value within 7 days, or urine volume less than 0.5 mL/kg/hour for more than 6 hours. There are 3 stages of severity:

• Stage 1—an increase in serum creatinine of 1.5 to 1.9 times baseline, an absolute increase of at least 0.3 mg/dL, or urine output less than 0.5 mL/kg/hour for 6 to 12 hours
• Stage 2—an increase in serum creatinine of 2.0 to 2.9 times baseline or urine output less than 0.5 mmL/kg/hour for 12 or more hours
• Stage 3—an increase in serum creatinine of 3 times baseline, an absolute increase of at least 4 mg/dL, initiation of renal replacement therapy, urine output less than 0.3 mL/kg/hour for 24 or more hours, or anuria for 12 or more hours.¹⁵

Multiple factors associated with surgery may contribute to AKI, including hemodynamic instability, volume shifts, blood loss, use of heart-lung bypass, new medications, activation of the inflammatory cascade, oxidative stress, and anemia.

AKI in cardiac surgery

The incidence of AKI is high in cardiac surgery. In a meta-analysis of 46 studies (N = 242,000), its incidence in cardiopulmonary bypass surgery was about 18%, with 2.1% of patients needing renal replacement therapy.¹⁶ However, the incidence varied considerably from study to study, ranging from 1% to 53%, and was influenced by the definition of AKI, the type of cardiac surgery, and the patient population.¹⁶

Cardiac surgery-associated AKI adversely affects outcomes. Several studies have shown that cardiac surgery patients who develop AKI have higher rates of death and stroke.^16–21 More severe AKI confers higher mortality rates, with the highest mortality rate in patients who need renal replacement therapy, approximately 37%.¹⁷ Patients with cardiac surgery-associated AKI also have a longer hospital length of stay and significantly higher costs of care.^17,18

Long-term outcomes are also negatively affected by AKI. In cardiac surgery patients with AKI who had completely recovered renal function by the time they left the hospital, the 2-year incidence rate of CKD was 6.8%, significantly higher than the 0.2% rate in patients who did not develop AKI.¹⁹ The 2-year survival rates also were significantly worse for patients who developed postoperative AKI (82.3% vs 93.7%). Similarly, in patients undergoing CABG who had normal renal function before surgery, those who developed AKI postoperatively had significantly shorter long-term survival rates.²⁰ The effect does not require a large change in renal function. An increase in creatinine as small as 0.3 mg/dL has been associated with a higher rate of death and a long-term risk of end-stage renal disease that is 3 times higher.²¹

Cardiac surgery

CKD is a risk factor not only after cardiac surgery but also after percutaneous procedures. In a meta-analysis of 4,992 patients with CKD who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement, both moderate and severe CKD increased the odds of AKI, early stroke, the need for dialysis, and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at 1 year.^22,23 Increased rates of AKI also have been found in patients with CKD undergoing CABG surgery.²⁴ These results point to a synergistic effect between AKI and CKD, with outcomes much worse in combination than alone.

In cardiac surgery, the most important patient risk factors associated with a higher incidence of postoperative AKI are age older than 75, CKD, preoperative heart failure, and prior myocardial infarction.^19,25 Diabetes is an additional independent risk factor, with type 1 conferring higher risk than type 2.²⁶ Preoperative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors may or may not be a risk factor for cardiac surgery-associated AKI, with some studies finding increased risk and others finding reduced rates.^27,28

Anemia, which may be related to either patient or surgical risk factors (eg, intraoperative blood loss), also increases the risk of AKI in cardiac surgery.^29,30 A retrospective study of CABG surgery patients found that intraoperative hemoglobin levels below 8 g/dL were associated with a 25% to 30% incidence of AKI, compared with 15% to 20% with hemoglobin levels above 9 g/dL.²⁹ Additionally, having severe hypotension (mean arterial pressure < 50 mm Hg) significantly increased the AKI rates in the low-hemoglobin group.²⁹ Similar results were reported in a later study.³⁰

Among surgical factors, several randomized controlled trials have shown that off-pump CABG is associated with a significantly lower risk of postoperative AKI than on-pump CABG; however, this difference did not translate into any long-term difference in mortality rates.^31,32 Longer cardiopulmonary bypass time is strongly associated with a higher incidence of AKI and postoperative death.³³

Noncardiac surgery

AKI is less common after noncardiac surgery; however, outcomes are severe in patients in whom it occurs. In a study of 15,102 noncardiac surgery patients, only 0.8% developed AKI and 0.1% required renal replacement therapy.³⁴

Risk factors after noncardiac surgery are similar to those after cardiac surgery (Table 3).^34–36 Factors with the greatest impact are older age, peripheral vascular occlusive disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease necessitating chronic bronchodilator therapy, high-risk surgery, hepatic disease, emergent or urgent surgery, and high body mass index.

Surgical risk factors include total vasopressor dose administered, use of a vasopressor infusion, and diuretic administration.³⁴ In addition, intraoperative hypotension is associated with a higher risk of AKI, major adverse cardiac events, and 30-day mortality.³⁷

Noncardiac surgery patients with postoperative AKI have significantly higher rates of 30-day readmissions, 1-year progression to end-stage renal disease, and mortality than patients who do not develop AKI.³⁵ Additionally, patients with AKI have significantly higher rates of cardiovascular complications (33.3% vs 11.3%) and death (6.1% vs 0.9%), as well as a significantly longer length of hospital stay.^34,36

CAN WE DECREASE THE IMPACT OF RENAL DISEASE IN SURGERY?

Before surgery, practitioners need to identify patients at risk of AKI, implement possible risk-reduction measures, and, afterward, treat it early in its course if it occurs.

The preoperative visit is the ideal time to assess a patient’s risk of postoperative renal dysfunction. Laboratory tests can identify risks based on surgery type, age, hypertension, the presence of CKD, and medications that affect renal function. However, the basic chemistry panel is abnormal in only 8.2% of patients and affects management in just 2.6%, requiring the clinician to target testing to patients at high risk.³⁸

Patients with a significant degree of renal dysfunction, particularly those previously undiagnosed, may benefit from additional preoperative testing and medication management. Perioperative management of medications that could adversely affect renal function should be carefully considered during the preoperative visit. In addition, the postoperative inpatient team needs to be informed about potentially nephrotoxic medications and medications that are renally cleared. Attention needs to be given to the renal impact of common perioperative medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, intravenous contrast, low-molecular-weight heparins, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers. With the emphasis on opioid-sparing analgesics, it is particularly important to assess the risk of AKI if nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are part of the pain control plan.

Nephrology referral may help, especially for patients with a GFR less than 45 mL/min. This information enables more informed decision-making regarding the risks of adverse outcomes related to kidney disease.

WHAT TOOLS DO WE HAVE TO DIAGNOSE RENAL INJURY?

Several risk-prediction models have been developed to assess the postoperative risk of AKI in both cardiac and major noncardiac surgery patients. Although these models can identify risk factors, their clinical accuracy and utility have been questioned.

Biomarkers

Early diagnosis is the first step in managing AKI, allowing time to implement measures to minimize its impact.

Serum creatinine testing is widely used to measure renal function and diagnose AKI; however, it does not detect small reductions in renal function, and there is a time lag between renal insult and a rise in creatinine. The result is a delay to diagnosis of AKI.

Biomarkers other than creatinine have been studied for early detection of intraoperative and postoperative renal insult. These novel renal injury markers include the following:

Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL). Two studies looked at plasma NGAL as an early marker of AKI in patients with CKD who were undergoing cardiac surgery.^39,40 One study found that by using NGAL instead of creatinine, postoperative AKI could be diagnosed an average of 20 hours earlier.³⁹ In addition, NGAL helped detect renal recovery earlier than creatinine.⁴⁰ The diagnostic cut-off values of NGAL were different for patients with CKD than for those without CKD.^39,40

Other novel markers include:

• Kidney injury marker 1
• N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase
• Cysteine C.

Although these biomarkers show some ability to detect renal injury, they provide only modest discrimination and are not widely available for clinical use.⁴¹ Current evidence does not support routine use of these markers in clinical settings.

Interventions to prevent or ameliorate the impact of CKD and AKI on surgical outcomes have been studied most extensively in cardiac surgery patients.

Aspirin. A retrospective study of 3,585 cardiac surgery patients with CKD found that preoperative aspirin use significantly lowered the incidence of postoperative AKI and 30-day mortality compared with patients not using aspirin.⁴² Aspirin use reduced 30-day mortality in CKD stages 1, 2, and 3 by 23.3%, 58%, and 70%, respectively. On the other hand, in the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE) trial, in noncardiac surgery patients, neither aspirin nor clonidine started 2 to 4 hours preoperatively and continued up to 30 days after surgery altered the risk of AKI significantly more than placebo.⁴³

Statins have been ineffective in reducing the incidence of AKI in cardiac surgery patients. In fact, a meta-analysis of 8 interventional trials found an increased incidence of AKI in patients in whom statins were started perioperatively.⁴⁴ Erythropoietin was also found to be ineffective in the prevention of perioperative AKI in cardiac surgery patients in a separate study.⁴⁵

The evidence regarding other therapies has also varied.

N-acetylcysteine in high doses reduced the incidence of AKI in patients with CKD stage 3 and 4 undergoing CABG.⁴⁶ Another meta-analysis of 10 studies in cardiac surgery patients published recently did not show any benefit of N-acetylcysteine in reducing AKI.⁴⁷

Human atrial natriuretic peptide, given preoperatively to patients with CKD, reduced the acute and long-term creatinine rise as well as the number of cardiac events after CABG; however, it did not reduce mortality rates.⁴⁸

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, given preoperatively to patients with heart failure was associated with a decrease in the incidence of AKI in 1 study.⁴⁹

Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective alpha 2 adrenoreceptor agonist. A recent meta-analysis of 10 clinical trials found it beneficial in reducing the risk of perioperative AKI in cardiac surgery patients.⁵⁰ An earlier meta-analysis had similar results.⁵¹

Levosimendan is an inotropic vasodilator that improves cardiac output and renal perfusion in patients with systolic heart failure, and it has been hypothesized to decrease the risk of AKI after cardiac surgery. Previous data demonstrated that this drug reduced AKI and mortality; however, analysis was limited by small sample size and varying definitions of AKI.⁵² A recent meta-analysis showed that levosimendan was associated with a lower incidence of AKI but was also associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation and no reduction in 30-day mortality.⁵³

Remote ischemic preconditioning is a procedure that subjects the kidneys to brief episodes of ischemia before surgery, protecting them when they are later subjected to prolonged ischemia or reperfusion injury. It has shown initial promising results in preventing AKI. In a randomized controlled trial in 240 patients at high risk of AKI, those who received remote ischemic preconditioning had an AKI incidence of 37.5% compared with 52.5% for controls (P = .02); however, the mortality rate was the same.⁵⁴ Similarly, remote ischemic preconditioning significantly lowered the incidence of AKI in nondiabetic patients undergoing CABG surgery compared with controls.⁵⁵

Fluid management. Renal perfusion is intimately related to the development of AKI, and there is evidence that both hypovolemia and excessive fluid resuscitation can increase the risk of AKI in noncardiac surgery patients.⁵⁶ Because of this, fluid management has also received attention in perioperative AKI. Goal-directed fluid management has been evaluated in noncardiac surgery patients, and it did not show any benefit in preventing AKI.⁵⁷ However, in a more recent retrospective study, postoperative positive fluid balance was associated with increased incidence of AKI compared with zero fluid balance. Negative fluid balance did not appear to have a detrimental effect.⁵⁸

RECOMMENDATIONS

No prophylactic therapy has yet been shown to definitively decrease the risk of postoperative AKI in all patients. Nevertheless, it is important to identify patients at risk during the preoperative visit, especially those with CKD. Many patients undergoing surgery have CKD, placing them at high risk of developing AKI in the perioperative period. The risk is particularly high with cardiac surgery.

Serum creatinine and urine output should be closely monitored perioperatively in at-risk patients. If AKI is diagnosed, practitioners need to identify and ameliorate the cause as early as possible.

Recommendations from KDIGO for perioperative prevention and management of AKI are listed in Table 4.¹⁵ These include avoiding additional nephrotoxic medications and adjusting the doses of renally cleared medications. Also, some patients may benefit from preoperative counseling and specialist referral.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is estimated to affect 14% of Americans, but it is likely underdiagnosed because it is often asymptomatic.^1,2 Its prevalence is even higher in patients who undergo surgery—up to 30% in cardiac surgery.³ Its impact on surgical outcomes is substantial.⁴ Importantly, patients with CKD are at higher risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI), which is also associated with adverse outcomes. Thus, it is important to recognize, assess, and manage abnormal renal function in surgical patients.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES?

Cardiac surgery outcomes

Moreover, in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the worse the renal dysfunction, the higher the long-term mortality rate. Patients with moderate (stage 3) CKD had a 3.5 times higher odds of in-hospital mortality compared with patients with normal renal function, rising to 8.8 with severe (stage 4) and to 9.6 with dialysis-dependent (stage 5) CKD.¹¹

The mechanisms linking CKD with negative cardiac outcomes are unclear, but many possibilities exist. CKD is an independent risk factor for coronary artery disease and shares underlying risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes. Cardiac surgery patients with CKD are also more likely to have diabetes, left ventricular dysfunction, and peripheral vascular disease.

Noncardiac surgery outcomes

CKD is also associated with adverse outcomes in noncardiac surgery patients, especially at higher levels of renal dysfunction.^12–14 For example, in patients who underwent major noncardiac surgery, compared with patients in stage 1 (estimated GFR > 90 mL/min/1.73 m²), the odds ratios for all-cause mortality were as follows:

• 0.8 for patients with stage 2 CKD
• 2.2 in stage 3a
• 2.8 in stage 3b
• 11.3 in stage 4
• 5.8 in stage 5.¹⁴

The association between estimated GFR and all-cause mortality was not statistically significant (P = .071), but statistically significant associations were observed between estimated GFR and major adverse cardiovascular events (P < .001) and hospital length of stay (P < .001).

The association of CKD with major adverse outcomes and death in both cardiac and noncardiac surgical patients demonstrates the importance of understanding this risk, identifying patients with CKD preoperatively, and taking steps to lower the risk.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY?

AKI is a common and serious complication of surgery, especially cardiac surgery. It has been associated with higher rates of morbidity, mortality, and cardiovascular events, longer hospital length of stay, and higher cost.

Several groups have proposed criteria for defining AKI and its severity; the KDIGO criteria are the most widely accepted.¹⁵ These define AKI as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of 0.3 mg/dL or more within 48 hours or at least 1.5 times the baseline value within 7 days, or urine volume less than 0.5 mL/kg/hour for more than 6 hours. There are 3 stages of severity:

• Stage 1—an increase in serum creatinine of 1.5 to 1.9 times baseline, an absolute increase of at least 0.3 mg/dL, or urine output less than 0.5 mL/kg/hour for 6 to 12 hours
• Stage 2—an increase in serum creatinine of 2.0 to 2.9 times baseline or urine output less than 0.5 mmL/kg/hour for 12 or more hours
• Stage 3—an increase in serum creatinine of 3 times baseline, an absolute increase of at least 4 mg/dL, initiation of renal replacement therapy, urine output less than 0.3 mL/kg/hour for 24 or more hours, or anuria for 12 or more hours.¹⁵

Multiple factors associated with surgery may contribute to AKI, including hemodynamic instability, volume shifts, blood loss, use of heart-lung bypass, new medications, activation of the inflammatory cascade, oxidative stress, and anemia.

AKI in cardiac surgery

The incidence of AKI is high in cardiac surgery. In a meta-analysis of 46 studies (N = 242,000), its incidence in cardiopulmonary bypass surgery was about 18%, with 2.1% of patients needing renal replacement therapy.¹⁶ However, the incidence varied considerably from study to study, ranging from 1% to 53%, and was influenced by the definition of AKI, the type of cardiac surgery, and the patient population.¹⁶

Cardiac surgery-associated AKI adversely affects outcomes. Several studies have shown that cardiac surgery patients who develop AKI have higher rates of death and stroke.^16–21 More severe AKI confers higher mortality rates, with the highest mortality rate in patients who need renal replacement therapy, approximately 37%.¹⁷ Patients with cardiac surgery-associated AKI also have a longer hospital length of stay and significantly higher costs of care.^17,18

Long-term outcomes are also negatively affected by AKI. In cardiac surgery patients with AKI who had completely recovered renal function by the time they left the hospital, the 2-year incidence rate of CKD was 6.8%, significantly higher than the 0.2% rate in patients who did not develop AKI.¹⁹ The 2-year survival rates also were significantly worse for patients who developed postoperative AKI (82.3% vs 93.7%). Similarly, in patients undergoing CABG who had normal renal function before surgery, those who developed AKI postoperatively had significantly shorter long-term survival rates.²⁰ The effect does not require a large change in renal function. An increase in creatinine as small as 0.3 mg/dL has been associated with a higher rate of death and a long-term risk of end-stage renal disease that is 3 times higher.²¹

Cardiac surgery

CKD is a risk factor not only after cardiac surgery but also after percutaneous procedures. In a meta-analysis of 4,992 patients with CKD who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement, both moderate and severe CKD increased the odds of AKI, early stroke, the need for dialysis, and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at 1 year.^22,23 Increased rates of AKI also have been found in patients with CKD undergoing CABG surgery.²⁴ These results point to a synergistic effect between AKI and CKD, with outcomes much worse in combination than alone.

In cardiac surgery, the most important patient risk factors associated with a higher incidence of postoperative AKI are age older than 75, CKD, preoperative heart failure, and prior myocardial infarction.^19,25 Diabetes is an additional independent risk factor, with type 1 conferring higher risk than type 2.²⁶ Preoperative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors may or may not be a risk factor for cardiac surgery-associated AKI, with some studies finding increased risk and others finding reduced rates.^27,28

Anemia, which may be related to either patient or surgical risk factors (eg, intraoperative blood loss), also increases the risk of AKI in cardiac surgery.^29,30 A retrospective study of CABG surgery patients found that intraoperative hemoglobin levels below 8 g/dL were associated with a 25% to 30% incidence of AKI, compared with 15% to 20% with hemoglobin levels above 9 g/dL.²⁹ Additionally, having severe hypotension (mean arterial pressure < 50 mm Hg) significantly increased the AKI rates in the low-hemoglobin group.²⁹ Similar results were reported in a later study.³⁰

Among surgical factors, several randomized controlled trials have shown that off-pump CABG is associated with a significantly lower risk of postoperative AKI than on-pump CABG; however, this difference did not translate into any long-term difference in mortality rates.^31,32 Longer cardiopulmonary bypass time is strongly associated with a higher incidence of AKI and postoperative death.³³

Noncardiac surgery

AKI is less common after noncardiac surgery; however, outcomes are severe in patients in whom it occurs. In a study of 15,102 noncardiac surgery patients, only 0.8% developed AKI and 0.1% required renal replacement therapy.³⁴

Risk factors after noncardiac surgery are similar to those after cardiac surgery (Table 3).^34–36 Factors with the greatest impact are older age, peripheral vascular occlusive disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease necessitating chronic bronchodilator therapy, high-risk surgery, hepatic disease, emergent or urgent surgery, and high body mass index.

Surgical risk factors include total vasopressor dose administered, use of a vasopressor infusion, and diuretic administration.³⁴ In addition, intraoperative hypotension is associated with a higher risk of AKI, major adverse cardiac events, and 30-day mortality.³⁷

Noncardiac surgery patients with postoperative AKI have significantly higher rates of 30-day readmissions, 1-year progression to end-stage renal disease, and mortality than patients who do not develop AKI.³⁵ Additionally, patients with AKI have significantly higher rates of cardiovascular complications (33.3% vs 11.3%) and death (6.1% vs 0.9%), as well as a significantly longer length of hospital stay.^34,36

CAN WE DECREASE THE IMPACT OF RENAL DISEASE IN SURGERY?

Before surgery, practitioners need to identify patients at risk of AKI, implement possible risk-reduction measures, and, afterward, treat it early in its course if it occurs.

The preoperative visit is the ideal time to assess a patient’s risk of postoperative renal dysfunction. Laboratory tests can identify risks based on surgery type, age, hypertension, the presence of CKD, and medications that affect renal function. However, the basic chemistry panel is abnormal in only 8.2% of patients and affects management in just 2.6%, requiring the clinician to target testing to patients at high risk.³⁸

Patients with a significant degree of renal dysfunction, particularly those previously undiagnosed, may benefit from additional preoperative testing and medication management. Perioperative management of medications that could adversely affect renal function should be carefully considered during the preoperative visit. In addition, the postoperative inpatient team needs to be informed about potentially nephrotoxic medications and medications that are renally cleared. Attention needs to be given to the renal impact of common perioperative medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, intravenous contrast, low-molecular-weight heparins, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers. With the emphasis on opioid-sparing analgesics, it is particularly important to assess the risk of AKI if nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are part of the pain control plan.

Nephrology referral may help, especially for patients with a GFR less than 45 mL/min. This information enables more informed decision-making regarding the risks of adverse outcomes related to kidney disease.

WHAT TOOLS DO WE HAVE TO DIAGNOSE RENAL INJURY?

Several risk-prediction models have been developed to assess the postoperative risk of AKI in both cardiac and major noncardiac surgery patients. Although these models can identify risk factors, their clinical accuracy and utility have been questioned.

Biomarkers

Early diagnosis is the first step in managing AKI, allowing time to implement measures to minimize its impact.

Serum creatinine testing is widely used to measure renal function and diagnose AKI; however, it does not detect small reductions in renal function, and there is a time lag between renal insult and a rise in creatinine. The result is a delay to diagnosis of AKI.

Biomarkers other than creatinine have been studied for early detection of intraoperative and postoperative renal insult. These novel renal injury markers include the following:

Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL). Two studies looked at plasma NGAL as an early marker of AKI in patients with CKD who were undergoing cardiac surgery.^39,40 One study found that by using NGAL instead of creatinine, postoperative AKI could be diagnosed an average of 20 hours earlier.³⁹ In addition, NGAL helped detect renal recovery earlier than creatinine.⁴⁰ The diagnostic cut-off values of NGAL were different for patients with CKD than for those without CKD.^39,40

Other novel markers include:

• Kidney injury marker 1
• N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase
• Cysteine C.

Although these biomarkers show some ability to detect renal injury, they provide only modest discrimination and are not widely available for clinical use.⁴¹ Current evidence does not support routine use of these markers in clinical settings.

Interventions to prevent or ameliorate the impact of CKD and AKI on surgical outcomes have been studied most extensively in cardiac surgery patients.

Aspirin. A retrospective study of 3,585 cardiac surgery patients with CKD found that preoperative aspirin use significantly lowered the incidence of postoperative AKI and 30-day mortality compared with patients not using aspirin.⁴² Aspirin use reduced 30-day mortality in CKD stages 1, 2, and 3 by 23.3%, 58%, and 70%, respectively. On the other hand, in the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE) trial, in noncardiac surgery patients, neither aspirin nor clonidine started 2 to 4 hours preoperatively and continued up to 30 days after surgery altered the risk of AKI significantly more than placebo.⁴³

Statins have been ineffective in reducing the incidence of AKI in cardiac surgery patients. In fact, a meta-analysis of 8 interventional trials found an increased incidence of AKI in patients in whom statins were started perioperatively.⁴⁴ Erythropoietin was also found to be ineffective in the prevention of perioperative AKI in cardiac surgery patients in a separate study.⁴⁵

The evidence regarding other therapies has also varied.

N-acetylcysteine in high doses reduced the incidence of AKI in patients with CKD stage 3 and 4 undergoing CABG.⁴⁶ Another meta-analysis of 10 studies in cardiac surgery patients published recently did not show any benefit of N-acetylcysteine in reducing AKI.⁴⁷

Human atrial natriuretic peptide, given preoperatively to patients with CKD, reduced the acute and long-term creatinine rise as well as the number of cardiac events after CABG; however, it did not reduce mortality rates.⁴⁸

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, given preoperatively to patients with heart failure was associated with a decrease in the incidence of AKI in 1 study.⁴⁹

Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective alpha 2 adrenoreceptor agonist. A recent meta-analysis of 10 clinical trials found it beneficial in reducing the risk of perioperative AKI in cardiac surgery patients.⁵⁰ An earlier meta-analysis had similar results.⁵¹

Levosimendan is an inotropic vasodilator that improves cardiac output and renal perfusion in patients with systolic heart failure, and it has been hypothesized to decrease the risk of AKI after cardiac surgery. Previous data demonstrated that this drug reduced AKI and mortality; however, analysis was limited by small sample size and varying definitions of AKI.⁵² A recent meta-analysis showed that levosimendan was associated with a lower incidence of AKI but was also associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation and no reduction in 30-day mortality.⁵³

Remote ischemic preconditioning is a procedure that subjects the kidneys to brief episodes of ischemia before surgery, protecting them when they are later subjected to prolonged ischemia or reperfusion injury. It has shown initial promising results in preventing AKI. In a randomized controlled trial in 240 patients at high risk of AKI, those who received remote ischemic preconditioning had an AKI incidence of 37.5% compared with 52.5% for controls (P = .02); however, the mortality rate was the same.⁵⁴ Similarly, remote ischemic preconditioning significantly lowered the incidence of AKI in nondiabetic patients undergoing CABG surgery compared with controls.⁵⁵

Fluid management. Renal perfusion is intimately related to the development of AKI, and there is evidence that both hypovolemia and excessive fluid resuscitation can increase the risk of AKI in noncardiac surgery patients.⁵⁶ Because of this, fluid management has also received attention in perioperative AKI. Goal-directed fluid management has been evaluated in noncardiac surgery patients, and it did not show any benefit in preventing AKI.⁵⁷ However, in a more recent retrospective study, postoperative positive fluid balance was associated with increased incidence of AKI compared with zero fluid balance. Negative fluid balance did not appear to have a detrimental effect.⁵⁸

RECOMMENDATIONS

No prophylactic therapy has yet been shown to definitively decrease the risk of postoperative AKI in all patients. Nevertheless, it is important to identify patients at risk during the preoperative visit, especially those with CKD. Many patients undergoing surgery have CKD, placing them at high risk of developing AKI in the perioperative period. The risk is particularly high with cardiac surgery.

Serum creatinine and urine output should be closely monitored perioperatively in at-risk patients. If AKI is diagnosed, practitioners need to identify and ameliorate the cause as early as possible.

Recommendations from KDIGO for perioperative prevention and management of AKI are listed in Table 4.¹⁵ These include avoiding additional nephrotoxic medications and adjusting the doses of renally cleared medications. Also, some patients may benefit from preoperative counseling and specialist referral.

Click here to access Federal Health Care Data Trends 2018

Table of Contents

• Veteran Demographics
• Vietnam Veterans
• Gulf War & Post 9/11 Veterans
• Cardiovascular Diseases
• Dermatology
• Neurology
• Oncology
• Respiratory Diseases
• Sleep Disorders
• References

Click here to access Federal Health Care Data Trends 2018

Table of Contents

• Veteran Demographics
• Vietnam Veterans
• Gulf War & Post 9/11 Veterans
• Cardiovascular Diseases
• Dermatology
• Neurology
• Oncology
• Respiratory Diseases
• Sleep Disorders
• References

Click here to access Federal Health Care Data Trends 2018

Table of Contents

• Veteran Demographics
• Vietnam Veterans
• Gulf War & Post 9/11 Veterans
• Cardiovascular Diseases
• Dermatology
• Neurology
• Oncology
• Respiratory Diseases
• Sleep Disorders
• References

Hotel pools and hot tubs are breeding grounds for waterborne bacteria—and they can be deadly. Between 2000 and 2014, germs spread through treated recreational water caused at least 27,219 illnesses and 8 deaths.

According to a CDC study, efforts to prevent outbreaks have had mixed results. The number of Legionella-related respiratory disease outbreaks increased over time, while Pseudomonas-related skin infection outbreaks declined and Cryptosporidium-related diarrheal disease outbreaks leveled off.

Legionella, which can cause severe pneumonia and flulike symptoms, was responsible for 16% of outbreaks. Another 13% was due to Pseudomonas, which can cause “hot tub rash” and swimmer’s ear. When a pool, hot tub, or water playground isn’t cleaned properly, bacteria grow and form “biofilm” on wet surfaces, ideal growing grounds for bacteria like Legionella and Pseudomonas. It’s harder for disinfectants to kill these bacteria when they are protected by biofilm, the CDC says.

The worst offender was Cryptosporidium, which caused 58% of the outbreaks and 89% of the illnesses. “Swallowing just a mouthful of water with Crypto in it can make otherwise healthy kids and adults sick for weeks,” said Michele Hlavsa, RN, MPH, chief of the CDC’s Healthy Swimming Program. Chlorine can’t kill Cryptosporidium quickly, she cautions. The best way to avoid it is to keep it out of the water in the first place. That means keeping anyone (usually young children) with stomach problems or diarrhea out of the pool. 

Other CDC tips:

• Check the inspection scores for pools, hot tubs, and water playgrounds.
• Use a test strip from a pool supply store to check the pH and bromine or free chlorine levels.
• Don’t swallow pool water.
• Take kids on regular bathroom breaks; change diapers in the diaper-changing area, away from the water.

Hotel pools and hot tubs are breeding grounds for waterborne bacteria—and they can be deadly. Between 2000 and 2014, germs spread through treated recreational water caused at least 27,219 illnesses and 8 deaths.

According to a CDC study, efforts to prevent outbreaks have had mixed results. The number of Legionella-related respiratory disease outbreaks increased over time, while Pseudomonas-related skin infection outbreaks declined and Cryptosporidium-related diarrheal disease outbreaks leveled off.

Legionella, which can cause severe pneumonia and flulike symptoms, was responsible for 16% of outbreaks. Another 13% was due to Pseudomonas, which can cause “hot tub rash” and swimmer’s ear. When a pool, hot tub, or water playground isn’t cleaned properly, bacteria grow and form “biofilm” on wet surfaces, ideal growing grounds for bacteria like Legionella and Pseudomonas. It’s harder for disinfectants to kill these bacteria when they are protected by biofilm, the CDC says.

The worst offender was Cryptosporidium, which caused 58% of the outbreaks and 89% of the illnesses. “Swallowing just a mouthful of water with Crypto in it can make otherwise healthy kids and adults sick for weeks,” said Michele Hlavsa, RN, MPH, chief of the CDC’s Healthy Swimming Program. Chlorine can’t kill Cryptosporidium quickly, she cautions. The best way to avoid it is to keep it out of the water in the first place. That means keeping anyone (usually young children) with stomach problems or diarrhea out of the pool. 

Other CDC tips:

• Check the inspection scores for pools, hot tubs, and water playgrounds.
• Use a test strip from a pool supply store to check the pH and bromine or free chlorine levels.
• Don’t swallow pool water.
• Take kids on regular bathroom breaks; change diapers in the diaper-changing area, away from the water.

Hotel pools and hot tubs are breeding grounds for waterborne bacteria—and they can be deadly. Between 2000 and 2014, germs spread through treated recreational water caused at least 27,219 illnesses and 8 deaths.

According to a CDC study, efforts to prevent outbreaks have had mixed results. The number of Legionella-related respiratory disease outbreaks increased over time, while Pseudomonas-related skin infection outbreaks declined and Cryptosporidium-related diarrheal disease outbreaks leveled off.

Legionella, which can cause severe pneumonia and flulike symptoms, was responsible for 16% of outbreaks. Another 13% was due to Pseudomonas, which can cause “hot tub rash” and swimmer’s ear. When a pool, hot tub, or water playground isn’t cleaned properly, bacteria grow and form “biofilm” on wet surfaces, ideal growing grounds for bacteria like Legionella and Pseudomonas. It’s harder for disinfectants to kill these bacteria when they are protected by biofilm, the CDC says.

The worst offender was Cryptosporidium, which caused 58% of the outbreaks and 89% of the illnesses. “Swallowing just a mouthful of water with Crypto in it can make otherwise healthy kids and adults sick for weeks,” said Michele Hlavsa, RN, MPH, chief of the CDC’s Healthy Swimming Program. Chlorine can’t kill Cryptosporidium quickly, she cautions. The best way to avoid it is to keep it out of the water in the first place. That means keeping anyone (usually young children) with stomach problems or diarrhea out of the pool. 

Other CDC tips:

• Check the inspection scores for pools, hot tubs, and water playgrounds.
• Use a test strip from a pool supply store to check the pH and bromine or free chlorine levels.
• Don’t swallow pool water.
• Take kids on regular bathroom breaks; change diapers in the diaper-changing area, away from the water.

If there is one thing that the VA and DoD have in common—it’s access to high-quality data. With 8.9 million veterans accessing VA care and another 9.4 million utilizing TRICARE, both the Veterans Health Administration and the TRICARE/Military Health System know a tremendous amount about their population. As a result, the VA, DoD, and independent researchers have amassed a great amount of data about health care diagnoses and outcomes. The goal of this supplement to Federal Practitioner is to help federal health care providers synthesize the data by identifying the most significant research and highlighting key findings. We have pulled together the data from a broad cross-section of researchers and developed infographics to clarify and emphasize some of the most important trends in an easy to understand format.

Click here to continue reading.

If there is one thing that the VA and DoD have in common—it’s access to high-quality data. With 8.9 million veterans accessing VA care and another 9.4 million utilizing TRICARE, both the Veterans Health Administration and the TRICARE/Military Health System know a tremendous amount about their population. As a result, the VA, DoD, and independent researchers have amassed a great amount of data about health care diagnoses and outcomes. The goal of this supplement to Federal Practitioner is to help federal health care providers synthesize the data by identifying the most significant research and highlighting key findings. We have pulled together the data from a broad cross-section of researchers and developed infographics to clarify and emphasize some of the most important trends in an easy to understand format.

Click here to continue reading.

If there is one thing that the VA and DoD have in common—it’s access to high-quality data. With 8.9 million veterans accessing VA care and another 9.4 million utilizing TRICARE, both the Veterans Health Administration and the TRICARE/Military Health System know a tremendous amount about their population. As a result, the VA, DoD, and independent researchers have amassed a great amount of data about health care diagnoses and outcomes. The goal of this supplement to Federal Practitioner is to help federal health care providers synthesize the data by identifying the most significant research and highlighting key findings. We have pulled together the data from a broad cross-section of researchers and developed infographics to clarify and emphasize some of the most important trends in an easy to understand format.

Click here to continue reading.

Photo courtesy of Novartis

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended the approval of tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah®, formerly CTL019) for 2 indications.

According to the CHMP, the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy should be approved to treat adults with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who have received 2 or more lines of systemic therapy and patients up to 25 years of age who have B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory, in relapse post-transplant, or in second or later relapse.

The CHMP’s recommendation will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s recommendation is based on results from a pair of phase 2 trials—ELIANA and JULIET.

JULIET trial

Updated results from JULIET were presented at the recent 23rd Annual Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) as abstract S799.

The trial enrolled 165 adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, and 111 of them received a single infusion of tisagenlecleucel. Most of the patients who discontinued before dosing did so due to disease progression or clinical deterioration. The patients’ median age at baseline was 56 (range, 22-76).

Ninety-two percent of patients received bridging therapy, and 93% received lymphodepleting chemotherapy prior to tisagenlecleucel.

The median time from infusion to data cutoff was 13.9 months.

The overall response rate was 52%, and the complete response (CR) rate was 40%. Of the patients in CR at month 3, 83% remained in CR at month 12. The median duration of response was not reached.

At the time of data cutoff, none of the responders had proceeded to stem cell transplant.

For all infused patients (n=111), the 12-month overall survival (OS) rate was 49%, and the median OS was 11.7 months. The median OS was not reached for patients in CR.

Within 8 weeks of tisagenlecleucel infusion, 22% of patients had developed grade 3/4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Fifteen percent of patients received tocilizumab for CRS, including 3% of patients with grade 2 CRS and 50% of patients with grade 3 CRS.

Other adverse events (AEs) of interest included grade 3/4 neurologic events (12%), grade 3/4 cytopenias lasting more than 28 days (32%), grade 3/4 infections (20%), and grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia (15%).

ELIANA trial

Updated results from ELIANA were published in NEJM in February.

The trial included 75 children and young adults with relapsed/refractory ALL. The patients’ median age was 11 (range, 3 to 23).

All 75 patients received a single infusion of tisagenlecleucel, and 72 received lymphodepleting chemotherapy.

The median duration of follow-up was 13.1 months. The study’s primary endpoint was overall remission rate, which was defined as the rate of a best overall response of either CR or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) within 3 months.

The overall remission rate was 81% (61/75), with 60% of patients (n=45) achieving a CR and 21% (n=16) achieving a CRi.

All patients whose best response was CR/CRi were negative for minimal residual disease. The median duration of response was not met.

Eight patients proceeded to transplant while in remission. At last follow-up, 4 were still in remission, and 4 had unknown disease status.

At 6 months, the event-free survival rate was 73%, and the OS rate was 90%. At 12 months, the rates were 50% and 76%, respectively.

All patients experienced at least 1 AE, and 95% had AEs thought to be related to tisagenlecleucel. The rate of grade 3/4 AEs was 88%, and the rate of related grade 3/4 AEs was 73%.

AEs of special interest included CRS (77%), neurologic events (40%), infections (43%), febrile neutropenia (35%), cytopenias not resolved by day 28 (37%), and tumor lysis syndrome (4%).

Photo courtesy of Novartis

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended the approval of tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah®, formerly CTL019) for 2 indications.

According to the CHMP, the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy should be approved to treat adults with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who have received 2 or more lines of systemic therapy and patients up to 25 years of age who have B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory, in relapse post-transplant, or in second or later relapse.

The CHMP’s recommendation will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s recommendation is based on results from a pair of phase 2 trials—ELIANA and JULIET.

JULIET trial

Updated results from JULIET were presented at the recent 23rd Annual Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) as abstract S799.

The trial enrolled 165 adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, and 111 of them received a single infusion of tisagenlecleucel. Most of the patients who discontinued before dosing did so due to disease progression or clinical deterioration. The patients’ median age at baseline was 56 (range, 22-76).

Ninety-two percent of patients received bridging therapy, and 93% received lymphodepleting chemotherapy prior to tisagenlecleucel.

The median time from infusion to data cutoff was 13.9 months.

The overall response rate was 52%, and the complete response (CR) rate was 40%. Of the patients in CR at month 3, 83% remained in CR at month 12. The median duration of response was not reached.

At the time of data cutoff, none of the responders had proceeded to stem cell transplant.

For all infused patients (n=111), the 12-month overall survival (OS) rate was 49%, and the median OS was 11.7 months. The median OS was not reached for patients in CR.

Within 8 weeks of tisagenlecleucel infusion, 22% of patients had developed grade 3/4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Fifteen percent of patients received tocilizumab for CRS, including 3% of patients with grade 2 CRS and 50% of patients with grade 3 CRS.

Other adverse events (AEs) of interest included grade 3/4 neurologic events (12%), grade 3/4 cytopenias lasting more than 28 days (32%), grade 3/4 infections (20%), and grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia (15%).

ELIANA trial

Updated results from ELIANA were published in NEJM in February.

The trial included 75 children and young adults with relapsed/refractory ALL. The patients’ median age was 11 (range, 3 to 23).

All 75 patients received a single infusion of tisagenlecleucel, and 72 received lymphodepleting chemotherapy.

The median duration of follow-up was 13.1 months. The study’s primary endpoint was overall remission rate, which was defined as the rate of a best overall response of either CR or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) within 3 months.

The overall remission rate was 81% (61/75), with 60% of patients (n=45) achieving a CR and 21% (n=16) achieving a CRi.

All patients whose best response was CR/CRi were negative for minimal residual disease. The median duration of response was not met.

Eight patients proceeded to transplant while in remission. At last follow-up, 4 were still in remission, and 4 had unknown disease status.

At 6 months, the event-free survival rate was 73%, and the OS rate was 90%. At 12 months, the rates were 50% and 76%, respectively.

All patients experienced at least 1 AE, and 95% had AEs thought to be related to tisagenlecleucel. The rate of grade 3/4 AEs was 88%, and the rate of related grade 3/4 AEs was 73%.

AEs of special interest included CRS (77%), neurologic events (40%), infections (43%), febrile neutropenia (35%), cytopenias not resolved by day 28 (37%), and tumor lysis syndrome (4%).

Photo courtesy of Novartis

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended the approval of tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah®, formerly CTL019) for 2 indications.

According to the CHMP, the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy should be approved to treat adults with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who have received 2 or more lines of systemic therapy and patients up to 25 years of age who have B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory, in relapse post-transplant, or in second or later relapse.

The CHMP’s recommendation will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The CHMP’s recommendation is based on results from a pair of phase 2 trials—ELIANA and JULIET.

JULIET trial

Updated results from JULIET were presented at the recent 23rd Annual Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) as abstract S799.

The trial enrolled 165 adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, and 111 of them received a single infusion of tisagenlecleucel. Most of the patients who discontinued before dosing did so due to disease progression or clinical deterioration. The patients’ median age at baseline was 56 (range, 22-76).

Ninety-two percent of patients received bridging therapy, and 93% received lymphodepleting chemotherapy prior to tisagenlecleucel.

The median time from infusion to data cutoff was 13.9 months.

The overall response rate was 52%, and the complete response (CR) rate was 40%. Of the patients in CR at month 3, 83% remained in CR at month 12. The median duration of response was not reached.

At the time of data cutoff, none of the responders had proceeded to stem cell transplant.

For all infused patients (n=111), the 12-month overall survival (OS) rate was 49%, and the median OS was 11.7 months. The median OS was not reached for patients in CR.

Within 8 weeks of tisagenlecleucel infusion, 22% of patients had developed grade 3/4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Fifteen percent of patients received tocilizumab for CRS, including 3% of patients with grade 2 CRS and 50% of patients with grade 3 CRS.

Other adverse events (AEs) of interest included grade 3/4 neurologic events (12%), grade 3/4 cytopenias lasting more than 28 days (32%), grade 3/4 infections (20%), and grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia (15%).

ELIANA trial

Updated results from ELIANA were published in NEJM in February.

The trial included 75 children and young adults with relapsed/refractory ALL. The patients’ median age was 11 (range, 3 to 23).

All 75 patients received a single infusion of tisagenlecleucel, and 72 received lymphodepleting chemotherapy.

The median duration of follow-up was 13.1 months. The study’s primary endpoint was overall remission rate, which was defined as the rate of a best overall response of either CR or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) within 3 months.

The overall remission rate was 81% (61/75), with 60% of patients (n=45) achieving a CR and 21% (n=16) achieving a CRi.

All patients whose best response was CR/CRi were negative for minimal residual disease. The median duration of response was not met.

Eight patients proceeded to transplant while in remission. At last follow-up, 4 were still in remission, and 4 had unknown disease status.

At 6 months, the event-free survival rate was 73%, and the OS rate was 90%. At 12 months, the rates were 50% and 76%, respectively.

All patients experienced at least 1 AE, and 95% had AEs thought to be related to tisagenlecleucel. The rate of grade 3/4 AEs was 88%, and the rate of related grade 3/4 AEs was 73%.

AEs of special interest included CRS (77%), neurologic events (40%), infections (43%), febrile neutropenia (35%), cytopenias not resolved by day 28 (37%), and tumor lysis syndrome (4%).

Micrograph showing DLBCL

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta®, formerly KTE-C19).

The recommendation pertains to axicabtagene ciloleucel as a treatment for adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) who have received 2 or more lines of systemic therapy.

The CHMP’s recommendation will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The marketing authorization application for axicabtagene ciloleucel is supported by data from the ZUMA-1 trial.

Results from this phase 2 trial were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and published simultaneously in NEJM.

The trial enrolled 111 patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas. There were 101 patients who received axicabtagene ciloleucel—77 with DLBCL, 8 with PMBCL, and 16 with transformed follicular lymphoma (TFL).

Patients received conditioning with low-dose cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed by axicabtagene ciloleucel.

The objective response rate (ORR) was 82% (n=83), and the complete response (CR) rate was 54% (n=55).

Among the DLBCL patients, the ORR was 82% (63/77), and the CR rate was 49% (38/77). In the patients with PMBCL or TFL, the ORR was 83% (20/24), and the CR rate was 71% (17/24).

With a median follow-up of 15.4 months, 42% of patients retained their response, and 40% retained a CR.

At 18 months, the overall survival was 52%. Most deaths were due to disease progression.

However, 2 patients died of adverse events related to axicabtagene ciloleucel, both cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (78%), anemia (43%), thrombocytopenia (38%), and febrile neutropenia (31%).

Grade 3 or higher CRS occurred in 13% of patients, and grade 3 or higher neurologic events occurred in 28%.

Micrograph showing DLBCL

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta®, formerly KTE-C19).

The recommendation pertains to axicabtagene ciloleucel as a treatment for adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) who have received 2 or more lines of systemic therapy.

The CHMP’s recommendation will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The marketing authorization application for axicabtagene ciloleucel is supported by data from the ZUMA-1 trial.

Results from this phase 2 trial were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and published simultaneously in NEJM.

The trial enrolled 111 patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas. There were 101 patients who received axicabtagene ciloleucel—77 with DLBCL, 8 with PMBCL, and 16 with transformed follicular lymphoma (TFL).

Patients received conditioning with low-dose cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed by axicabtagene ciloleucel.

The objective response rate (ORR) was 82% (n=83), and the complete response (CR) rate was 54% (n=55).

Among the DLBCL patients, the ORR was 82% (63/77), and the CR rate was 49% (38/77). In the patients with PMBCL or TFL, the ORR was 83% (20/24), and the CR rate was 71% (17/24).

With a median follow-up of 15.4 months, 42% of patients retained their response, and 40% retained a CR.

At 18 months, the overall survival was 52%. Most deaths were due to disease progression.

However, 2 patients died of adverse events related to axicabtagene ciloleucel, both cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (78%), anemia (43%), thrombocytopenia (38%), and febrile neutropenia (31%).

Grade 3 or higher CRS occurred in 13% of patients, and grade 3 or higher neurologic events occurred in 28%.

Micrograph showing DLBCL

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta®, formerly KTE-C19).

The recommendation pertains to axicabtagene ciloleucel as a treatment for adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) who have received 2 or more lines of systemic therapy.

The CHMP’s recommendation will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

The marketing authorization application for axicabtagene ciloleucel is supported by data from the ZUMA-1 trial.

Results from this phase 2 trial were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and published simultaneously in NEJM.

The trial enrolled 111 patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas. There were 101 patients who received axicabtagene ciloleucel—77 with DLBCL, 8 with PMBCL, and 16 with transformed follicular lymphoma (TFL).

Patients received conditioning with low-dose cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed by axicabtagene ciloleucel.

The objective response rate (ORR) was 82% (n=83), and the complete response (CR) rate was 54% (n=55).

Among the DLBCL patients, the ORR was 82% (63/77), and the CR rate was 49% (38/77). In the patients with PMBCL or TFL, the ORR was 83% (20/24), and the CR rate was 71% (17/24).

With a median follow-up of 15.4 months, 42% of patients retained their response, and 40% retained a CR.

At 18 months, the overall survival was 52%. Most deaths were due to disease progression.

However, 2 patients died of adverse events related to axicabtagene ciloleucel, both cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (78%), anemia (43%), thrombocytopenia (38%), and febrile neutropenia (31%).

Grade 3 or higher CRS occurred in 13% of patients, and grade 3 or higher neurologic events occurred in 28%.

Photo courtesy of Roche

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved use of tocilizumab (RoActemra).

The recommendation is for tocilizumab to treat adults and pediatric patients age 2 and older who have severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome (CRS) induced by chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

The CHMP’s recommendation will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Tocilizumab is a humanized interleukin-6 receptor antagonist marketed by Roche Registration GmbH.

The drug is already approved by the European Commission to treat rheumatoid arthritis, active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and juvenile idiopathic polyarthritis.

The CHMP’s recommendation to expand the approved use of tocilizumab is supported by results from a retrospective analysis of data from clinical trials of CAR T-cell therapies in patients with hematologic malignancies.

For this analysis, researchers assessed 45 pediatric and adult patients treated with tocilizumab, with or without additional high-dose corticosteroids, for severe or life-threatening CRS.

Thirty-one patients (69%) achieved a response, defined as resolution of CRS within 14 days of the first dose of tocilizumab.

No more than 2 doses of tocilizumab were needed, and no drugs other than tocilizumab and corticosteroids were used for treatment.

No adverse reactions related to tocilizumab were reported.

Photo courtesy of Roche

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved use of tocilizumab (RoActemra).

The recommendation is for tocilizumab to treat adults and pediatric patients age 2 and older who have severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome (CRS) induced by chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

The CHMP’s recommendation will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Tocilizumab is a humanized interleukin-6 receptor antagonist marketed by Roche Registration GmbH.

The drug is already approved by the European Commission to treat rheumatoid arthritis, active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and juvenile idiopathic polyarthritis.

The CHMP’s recommendation to expand the approved use of tocilizumab is supported by results from a retrospective analysis of data from clinical trials of CAR T-cell therapies in patients with hematologic malignancies.

For this analysis, researchers assessed 45 pediatric and adult patients treated with tocilizumab, with or without additional high-dose corticosteroids, for severe or life-threatening CRS.

Thirty-one patients (69%) achieved a response, defined as resolution of CRS within 14 days of the first dose of tocilizumab.

No more than 2 doses of tocilizumab were needed, and no drugs other than tocilizumab and corticosteroids were used for treatment.

No adverse reactions related to tocilizumab were reported.

Photo courtesy of Roche

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved use of tocilizumab (RoActemra).

The recommendation is for tocilizumab to treat adults and pediatric patients age 2 and older who have severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome (CRS) induced by chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

The CHMP’s recommendation will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

Tocilizumab is a humanized interleukin-6 receptor antagonist marketed by Roche Registration GmbH.

The drug is already approved by the European Commission to treat rheumatoid arthritis, active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and juvenile idiopathic polyarthritis.

The CHMP’s recommendation to expand the approved use of tocilizumab is supported by results from a retrospective analysis of data from clinical trials of CAR T-cell therapies in patients with hematologic malignancies.

For this analysis, researchers assessed 45 pediatric and adult patients treated with tocilizumab, with or without additional high-dose corticosteroids, for severe or life-threatening CRS.

Thirty-one patients (69%) achieved a response, defined as resolution of CRS within 14 days of the first dose of tocilizumab.

No more than 2 doses of tocilizumab were needed, and no drugs other than tocilizumab and corticosteroids were used for treatment.

No adverse reactions related to tocilizumab were reported.

Micrograph showing MDS

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has lifted the clinical hold on a phase 1b trial of APTO-253.

APTO-253 is a small molecule that inhibits expression of the c-Myc oncogene without causing general myelosuppression of the bone marrow, according to Aptose Biosciences Inc., the company developing the drug.

Aptose was testing APTO-253 in a phase 1b trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) before the FDA put the trial on hold in November 2015.

The hold was placed after an event that occurred during dosing at a clinical site. The event was stoppage of an intravenous infusion pump that was caused by back pressure resulting from clogging of the in-line filter.

Aptose said no drug-related serious adverse events were reported, and the observed pharmacokinetic levels in patients treated with APTO-253 were within the expected range.

However, a review revealed concerns about the documentation records of the manufacturing procedures associated with APTO-253. So Aptose  voluntarily stopped dosing in the phase 1b trial, and the FDA placed the trial on hold.

A root cause investigation revealed that the event with the infusion pump resulted from chemistry and manufacturing-based issues.

Therefore, Aptose developed a new formulation of APTO-253 that did not cause filter clogging or pump stoppage during simulated infusion studies.

Now that the FDA has lifted the hold on the phase 1b trial, Aptose said screening and dosing will resume “as soon as practicable.”

“We are eager to return APTO-253 back into the clinic,” said William G. Rice, PhD, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Aptose.

“Our understanding of this molecule has evolved dramatically, and we are excited to deliver a MYC gene expression inhibitor to patients with debilitating hematologic malignancies.”

The phase 1b trial is designed to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of APTO-253 as a single agent and determine the recommended phase 2 dose of the drug.

APTO-253 will be administered once weekly, over a 28-day cycle. The dose-escalation cohort of the study could potentially enroll up to 20 patients with relapsed or refractory AML or high-risk MDS. The study is designed to then transition, as appropriate, to single-agent expansion cohorts in AML and MDS.

Micrograph showing MDS

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has lifted the clinical hold on a phase 1b trial of APTO-253.

APTO-253 is a small molecule that inhibits expression of the c-Myc oncogene without causing general myelosuppression of the bone marrow, according to Aptose Biosciences Inc., the company developing the drug.

Aptose was testing APTO-253 in a phase 1b trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) before the FDA put the trial on hold in November 2015.

The hold was placed after an event that occurred during dosing at a clinical site. The event was stoppage of an intravenous infusion pump that was caused by back pressure resulting from clogging of the in-line filter.

Aptose said no drug-related serious adverse events were reported, and the observed pharmacokinetic levels in patients treated with APTO-253 were within the expected range.

However, a review revealed concerns about the documentation records of the manufacturing procedures associated with APTO-253. So Aptose  voluntarily stopped dosing in the phase 1b trial, and the FDA placed the trial on hold.

A root cause investigation revealed that the event with the infusion pump resulted from chemistry and manufacturing-based issues.

Therefore, Aptose developed a new formulation of APTO-253 that did not cause filter clogging or pump stoppage during simulated infusion studies.

Now that the FDA has lifted the hold on the phase 1b trial, Aptose said screening and dosing will resume “as soon as practicable.”

“We are eager to return APTO-253 back into the clinic,” said William G. Rice, PhD, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Aptose.

“Our understanding of this molecule has evolved dramatically, and we are excited to deliver a MYC gene expression inhibitor to patients with debilitating hematologic malignancies.”

The phase 1b trial is designed to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of APTO-253 as a single agent and determine the recommended phase 2 dose of the drug.

APTO-253 will be administered once weekly, over a 28-day cycle. The dose-escalation cohort of the study could potentially enroll up to 20 patients with relapsed or refractory AML or high-risk MDS. The study is designed to then transition, as appropriate, to single-agent expansion cohorts in AML and MDS.

Micrograph showing MDS

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has lifted the clinical hold on a phase 1b trial of APTO-253.

APTO-253 is a small molecule that inhibits expression of the c-Myc oncogene without causing general myelosuppression of the bone marrow, according to Aptose Biosciences Inc., the company developing the drug.

Aptose was testing APTO-253 in a phase 1b trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) before the FDA put the trial on hold in November 2015.

The hold was placed after an event that occurred during dosing at a clinical site. The event was stoppage of an intravenous infusion pump that was caused by back pressure resulting from clogging of the in-line filter.

Aptose said no drug-related serious adverse events were reported, and the observed pharmacokinetic levels in patients treated with APTO-253 were within the expected range.

However, a review revealed concerns about the documentation records of the manufacturing procedures associated with APTO-253. So Aptose  voluntarily stopped dosing in the phase 1b trial, and the FDA placed the trial on hold.

A root cause investigation revealed that the event with the infusion pump resulted from chemistry and manufacturing-based issues.

Therefore, Aptose developed a new formulation of APTO-253 that did not cause filter clogging or pump stoppage during simulated infusion studies.

Now that the FDA has lifted the hold on the phase 1b trial, Aptose said screening and dosing will resume “as soon as practicable.”

“We are eager to return APTO-253 back into the clinic,” said William G. Rice, PhD, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Aptose.

“Our understanding of this molecule has evolved dramatically, and we are excited to deliver a MYC gene expression inhibitor to patients with debilitating hematologic malignancies.”

The phase 1b trial is designed to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of APTO-253 as a single agent and determine the recommended phase 2 dose of the drug.

APTO-253 will be administered once weekly, over a 28-day cycle. The dose-escalation cohort of the study could potentially enroll up to 20 patients with relapsed or refractory AML or high-risk MDS. The study is designed to then transition, as appropriate, to single-agent expansion cohorts in AML and MDS.

Antipsychotic agents are the mainstay of treatment for patients with schizophrenia,^1-3 and when taken regularly, they can greatly improve patient outcomes. Unfortunately, many studies have documented poor adherence to antipsychotic regimens in patients with schizophrenia, which often leads to an exacerbation of symptoms and preventable hospitalizations.^4-8 In order to improve adherence, many clinicians prescribe long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs).

LAIAs help improve adherence, but these benefits are seen only in patients who receive their injections within a specific time frame.^9-11 LAIAs administered outside of this time frame (missed doses) can lead to reoccurrence or exacerbation of symptoms. This article explains how to adequately manage missed LAIA doses.

First-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics

Two first-generation antipsychotics are available as a long-acting injectable formulation: haloperidol decanoate and fluphenazine decanoate. Due to the increased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms, use of these agents have decreased, and they are often less preferred than second-generation LAIAs. Furthermore, unlike many of the newer second-generation LAIAs, first-generation LAIAs lack literature on how to manage missed doses. Therefore, clinicians should analyze the pharmacokinetic properties of these agents (Table 1^12-28), as well as the patient’s medical history and clinical presentation, in order to determine how best to address missed doses.

Haloperidol decanoate plasma concentrations peak approximately 6 days after the injection.¹² The medication has a half-life of 3 weeks. One study found that haloperidol plasma concentrations were detectable 13 weeks after the discontinuation of haloperidol decanoate.¹⁷ This same study also found that the change in plasma levels from 3 to 6 weeks after the last dose was minimal.¹⁷ Based on these findings, Figure 1 summarizes our recommendations for addressing missed haloperidol decanoate doses.

Fluphenazine decanoate levels peak 24 hours after the injection.¹⁸ An estimated therapeutic range for fluphenazine is 0.2 to 2 ng/mL.^21-25 One study that evaluated fluphenazine decanoate levels following discontinuation after reaching steady state found there was no significant difference in plasma levels 6 weeks after the last dose of fluphenazine, but a significant decrease in levels 8 to 12 weeks after the last dose.²⁶ Other studies found that fluphenazine levels were detectable 21 to 24 weeks following fluphenazine decanoate discontinuation.^27,28 Based on these findings, Figure 2 summarizes our recommendations for addressing missed fluphenazine decanoate doses.

Continue to: Second-generation LAIAs

Six second-generation LAIAs are available in the United States. Compared with the first-generation LAIAs, second-generation LAIAs have more extensive guidance on how to address missed doses.

Risperidone long-acting injection. When addressing missed doses of risperidone long-acting injection, first determine whether the medication has reached steady state. Steady state occurs approximately after the fourth consecutive injection (approximately 2 months).²⁹

If a patient missed a dose but has not reached steady state, he or she should receive the next dose as well as oral antipsychotic supplementation for 3 weeks.³⁰ If the patient has reached steady state and if it has been ≤6 weeks since the last injection, give the next injection as soon as possible. However, if steady state has been reached and it has been >6 weeks since the last injection, give the next injection, along with 3 weeks of oral antipsychotic supplementation (Figure 3).

Paliperidone palmitate monthly long-acting injection. Once the initiation dosing phase of paliperidone palmitate monthly long-acting injection (PP1M) is completed, the maintenance dose is administered every 4 weeks. When addressing missed doses of PP1M, first determine whether the patient is in the initiation or maintenance dosing phase.³¹

Initiation phase. Patients are in the initiation dosing phase during the first 2 injections of PP1M. During the initiation phase, the patient first receives 234 mg and then 156 mg 1 week later, both in the deltoid muscle. One month later, the patient receives a maintenance dose of PP1M (in the deltoid or gluteal muscle). The second initiation injection may be given 4 days before or after the scheduled administration date. The initiation doses should be adjusted in patients with mild renal function (creatinine clearance 50 to 80 mL/min).³¹ Figure 4 summarizes the guidance for addressing a missed or delayed second injection during the initiation phase.

Continue to: Maintenance phase

Maintenance phase. During the maintenance phase, PP1M can be administered 7 days before or after the monthly due date. If the patient has missed a maintenance injection and it has been <6 weeks since the last dose, the maintenance injection can be given as soon as possible (Figure 5).³¹ If it has been 6 weeks to 6 months since the last injection, the patient should receive their prescribed maintenance dose as soon as possible and the same dose 1 week later, with both injections in the deltoid muscle. Following the second dose, the patient can resume their regular monthly maintenance schedule, in either the deltoid or gluteal muscle. For example, if the patient was maintained on 117 mg of PP1M and it had been 8 weeks since the last injection, the patient should receive 117 mg immediately, then 117 mg 1 week later, then 117 mg 1 month later. An exception to this is if a patient’s maintenance dose is 234 mg monthly. In this case, the patient should receive 156 mg of PP1M immediately, then 156 mg 1 week later, and then 234 mg 1 month later.³¹ If it has been >6 months since the last dose, the patient should start the initiation schedule as if he or she were receiving a new medication.³¹

Paliperidone palmitate 3-month long-acting injection (PP3M) should be administered every 3 months. This injection can be given 2 weeks before or after the date of the scheduled dose.³²

If the patient missed an injection and it has been <4 months since the last dose, the next scheduled dose should be given as soon as possible.³² If it has been 4 to 9 months since the last dose, the patient must return to PP1M for 2 booster injections 1 week apart. The dose of these PP1M booster injections depends on the dose of PP3M that the patient had been stabilized on:

• 78 mg if stabilized on 273 mg
• 117 mg if stabilized on 410 mg
• 156 mg if stabilized on 546 mg or 819 mg.³²

After the second booster dose, PP3M can be restarted 1 month later.³² If it has been >9 months since the last PP3M dose, the patient should be restarted on PP1M. PP3M can be reconsidered once the patient has been stabilized on PP1M for ≥4 months (Figure 6).³²

Continue to: Aripiprazole long-acting injection

Aripiprazole long-acting injection is administered every 4 weeks. If a patient misses an injection, first determine how many consecutive doses he or she has received.³³ If the patient has missed the second or third injection, and it has been <5 weeks since the last dose, give the next injection as soon as possible. If it has been >5 weeks, give the next injection as soon as possible, plus oral aripiprazole supplementation for 2 weeks (Figure 7).

If the patient has received ≥4 consecutive doses and misses a dose and it has been <6 weeks since the last dose, administer an injection as soon as possible. If it has been >6 weeks since the last dose, give the next injection as soon as possible, plus with oral aripiprazole supplementation for 2 weeks.

Aripiprazole lauroxil long-acting injection. Depending on the dose, aripiprazole lauroxil can be administered monthly, every 6 weeks, or every 2 months. Aripiprazole lauroxil can be administered 14 days before or after the scheduled dose.³⁴

The guidance for addressing missed or delayed doses of aripiprazole lauroxil differs depending on the dose the patient is stabilized on, and how long it has been since the last injection. Figure 8 summarizes how missed injections should be managed. When oral aripiprazole supplementation is needed, the following doses should be used:

• 10 mg/d if stabilized on 441 mg every month
• 15 mg/d if stabilized on 662 mg every month, 882 mg every 6 weeks, or 1,064 mg every 2 months
• 20 mg/d if stabilized on 882 mg every month.³⁴

Olanzapine pamoate long-acting injection is a unique LAIA because it requires prescribers and patients to participate in a risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) program due the risk of post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome. It is administered every 2 to 4 weeks, with loading doses given for the first 2 months of treatment (Table 2³⁵). After 2 months, the patient can proceed to the maintenance dosing regimen.

Continue to: Currently, there is no concrete guidance...

Currently, there is no concrete guidance on how to address missed doses of olanzapine long-acting injection; however, the pharmacokinetics of this formulation allow flexibility in dosing intervals. Therapeutic levels are present after the first injection, and the medication reaches steady-state levels in 3 months.^35-37 As a result of its specific formulation, olanzapine pamoate long-acting injection provides sustained olanzapine pamoate plasma concentrations between injections, and has a half-life of 30 days.³⁵ Consequently, therapeutic levels of the medication are still present 2 to 4 weeks after an injection.³⁷ Additionally, clinically relevant plasma concentrations may be present 2 to 3 months after the last injection.³⁶

In light of this information, if a patient has not reached steady state and has missed an injection, he or she should receive the recommended loading dose schedule. If the patient has reached steady state and it has been ≤2 months since the last dose, he or she should receive the next dose as soon as possible. If steady state has been reached and it has been >2 months since the last injection, the patient should receive the recommended loading dosing for 2 months (Figure 9). Because of the risk of post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome, and because therapeutic levels are achieved after the first injection, oral olanzapine supplementation is not recommended.

Use a stepwise approach

In general, clinicians can use a stepwise approach to managing missed doses of LAIAs (Figure 10). First, establish the number of LAIA doses the patient had received prior to the last dose, and whether these injections were administered on schedule. This will help you determine if the patient is in the initiation or maintenance phase and/or has reached steady state. The second step is to establish the date of the last injection. Use objective tools, such as pharmacy records or the medical chart, to determine the date of the last injection, rather than relying on patient reporting. For the third step, calculate the time that has passed since the last LAIA dose. Once you have completed these steps, use the specific medication recommendations described in this article to address the missed dose.

Continue to: Address barriers to adherence

When addressing missed LAIA doses, be sure to identify any barriers that may have led to a missed injection. These might include:

• bothersome adverse effects
• transportation difficulties
• issues with insurance/medication coverage
• comorbidities (ie, alcohol/substance use disorders)
• cognitive and functional impairment caused by the patient’s illness
• difficulty with keeping track of appointments.

Clinicians can work closely with patients and/or caregivers to address any barriers to ensure that patients receive their injections in a timely fashion.

The goal: Reducing relapse

LAIAs improve medication adherence. Although nonadherence is less frequent with LAIAs than with oral antipsychotics, when a LAIA dose is missed, it is important to properly follow a stepwise approach based on the unique properties of the specific LAIA prescribed. Proper management of LAIA missed doses can prevent relapse and reoccurrence of schizophrenia symptoms, thus possibly avoiding future hospitalizations.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Brian Tschosik, JD, Mary Collen O’Rourke, MD, and Amanda Holloway, MD, for their assistance with this article.

Bottom Line

Although long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) greatly assist with adherence, these agents are effective only when missed doses are avoided. When addressing missed LAIA doses, use a stepwise approach that takes into consideration the unique properties of the specific LAIA prescribed.

Related Resources

• Haddad P, Lambert T, Lauriello J, eds. Antipsychotic long-acting injections. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2016.  
• Diefenderfer LA. When should you consider combining 2 long-acting injectable antipsychotics? Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(10):42-46.

Drug Brand Names 

Aripiprazole long-acting injection • Abilify Maintena
Aripiprazole lauroxil long-acting injection • Aristada
Fluphenazine decanoate • Prolixin decanoate  
Haloperidol decanoate • Haldol decanoate
Olanzapine pamoate long-acting injection • Zyprexa Relprevv
Paliperidone palmitate monthly long-acting injection • Invega Sustenna
Paliperidone palmitate 3-month long-acting injection • Invega Trinza  
Risperidone long-acting injection • Risperdal Consta

Antipsychotic agents are the mainstay of treatment for patients with schizophrenia,^1-3 and when taken regularly, they can greatly improve patient outcomes. Unfortunately, many studies have documented poor adherence to antipsychotic regimens in patients with schizophrenia, which often leads to an exacerbation of symptoms and preventable hospitalizations.^4-8 In order to improve adherence, many clinicians prescribe long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs).

LAIAs help improve adherence, but these benefits are seen only in patients who receive their injections within a specific time frame.^9-11 LAIAs administered outside of this time frame (missed doses) can lead to reoccurrence or exacerbation of symptoms. This article explains how to adequately manage missed LAIA doses.

First-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics

Two first-generation antipsychotics are available as a long-acting injectable formulation: haloperidol decanoate and fluphenazine decanoate. Due to the increased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms, use of these agents have decreased, and they are often less preferred than second-generation LAIAs. Furthermore, unlike many of the newer second-generation LAIAs, first-generation LAIAs lack literature on how to manage missed doses. Therefore, clinicians should analyze the pharmacokinetic properties of these agents (Table 1^12-28), as well as the patient’s medical history and clinical presentation, in order to determine how best to address missed doses.

Haloperidol decanoate plasma concentrations peak approximately 6 days after the injection.¹² The medication has a half-life of 3 weeks. One study found that haloperidol plasma concentrations were detectable 13 weeks after the discontinuation of haloperidol decanoate.¹⁷ This same study also found that the change in plasma levels from 3 to 6 weeks after the last dose was minimal.¹⁷ Based on these findings, Figure 1 summarizes our recommendations for addressing missed haloperidol decanoate doses.

Fluphenazine decanoate levels peak 24 hours after the injection.¹⁸ An estimated therapeutic range for fluphenazine is 0.2 to 2 ng/mL.^21-25 One study that evaluated fluphenazine decanoate levels following discontinuation after reaching steady state found there was no significant difference in plasma levels 6 weeks after the last dose of fluphenazine, but a significant decrease in levels 8 to 12 weeks after the last dose.²⁶ Other studies found that fluphenazine levels were detectable 21 to 24 weeks following fluphenazine decanoate discontinuation.^27,28 Based on these findings, Figure 2 summarizes our recommendations for addressing missed fluphenazine decanoate doses.

Continue to: Second-generation LAIAs

Six second-generation LAIAs are available in the United States. Compared with the first-generation LAIAs, second-generation LAIAs have more extensive guidance on how to address missed doses.

Risperidone long-acting injection. When addressing missed doses of risperidone long-acting injection, first determine whether the medication has reached steady state. Steady state occurs approximately after the fourth consecutive injection (approximately 2 months).²⁹

If a patient missed a dose but has not reached steady state, he or she should receive the next dose as well as oral antipsychotic supplementation for 3 weeks.³⁰ If the patient has reached steady state and if it has been ≤6 weeks since the last injection, give the next injection as soon as possible. However, if steady state has been reached and it has been >6 weeks since the last injection, give the next injection, along with 3 weeks of oral antipsychotic supplementation (Figure 3).

Paliperidone palmitate monthly long-acting injection. Once the initiation dosing phase of paliperidone palmitate monthly long-acting injection (PP1M) is completed, the maintenance dose is administered every 4 weeks. When addressing missed doses of PP1M, first determine whether the patient is in the initiation or maintenance dosing phase.³¹

Initiation phase. Patients are in the initiation dosing phase during the first 2 injections of PP1M. During the initiation phase, the patient first receives 234 mg and then 156 mg 1 week later, both in the deltoid muscle. One month later, the patient receives a maintenance dose of PP1M (in the deltoid or gluteal muscle). The second initiation injection may be given 4 days before or after the scheduled administration date. The initiation doses should be adjusted in patients with mild renal function (creatinine clearance 50 to 80 mL/min).³¹ Figure 4 summarizes the guidance for addressing a missed or delayed second injection during the initiation phase.

Continue to: Maintenance phase

Maintenance phase. During the maintenance phase, PP1M can be administered 7 days before or after the monthly due date. If the patient has missed a maintenance injection and it has been <6 weeks since the last dose, the maintenance injection can be given as soon as possible (Figure 5).³¹ If it has been 6 weeks to 6 months since the last injection, the patient should receive their prescribed maintenance dose as soon as possible and the same dose 1 week later, with both injections in the deltoid muscle. Following the second dose, the patient can resume their regular monthly maintenance schedule, in either the deltoid or gluteal muscle. For example, if the patient was maintained on 117 mg of PP1M and it had been 8 weeks since the last injection, the patient should receive 117 mg immediately, then 117 mg 1 week later, then 117 mg 1 month later. An exception to this is if a patient’s maintenance dose is 234 mg monthly. In this case, the patient should receive 156 mg of PP1M immediately, then 156 mg 1 week later, and then 234 mg 1 month later.³¹ If it has been >6 months since the last dose, the patient should start the initiation schedule as if he or she were receiving a new medication.³¹

Paliperidone palmitate 3-month long-acting injection (PP3M) should be administered every 3 months. This injection can be given 2 weeks before or after the date of the scheduled dose.³²

If the patient missed an injection and it has been <4 months since the last dose, the next scheduled dose should be given as soon as possible.³² If it has been 4 to 9 months since the last dose, the patient must return to PP1M for 2 booster injections 1 week apart. The dose of these PP1M booster injections depends on the dose of PP3M that the patient had been stabilized on:

• 78 mg if stabilized on 273 mg
• 117 mg if stabilized on 410 mg
• 156 mg if stabilized on 546 mg or 819 mg.³²

After the second booster dose, PP3M can be restarted 1 month later.³² If it has been >9 months since the last PP3M dose, the patient should be restarted on PP1M. PP3M can be reconsidered once the patient has been stabilized on PP1M for ≥4 months (Figure 6).³²

Continue to: Aripiprazole long-acting injection

Aripiprazole long-acting injection is administered every 4 weeks. If a patient misses an injection, first determine how many consecutive doses he or she has received.³³ If the patient has missed the second or third injection, and it has been <5 weeks since the last dose, give the next injection as soon as possible. If it has been >5 weeks, give the next injection as soon as possible, plus oral aripiprazole supplementation for 2 weeks (Figure 7).

If the patient has received ≥4 consecutive doses and misses a dose and it has been <6 weeks since the last dose, administer an injection as soon as possible. If it has been >6 weeks since the last dose, give the next injection as soon as possible, plus with oral aripiprazole supplementation for 2 weeks.

Aripiprazole lauroxil long-acting injection. Depending on the dose, aripiprazole lauroxil can be administered monthly, every 6 weeks, or every 2 months. Aripiprazole lauroxil can be administered 14 days before or after the scheduled dose.³⁴

The guidance for addressing missed or delayed doses of aripiprazole lauroxil differs depending on the dose the patient is stabilized on, and how long it has been since the last injection. Figure 8 summarizes how missed injections should be managed. When oral aripiprazole supplementation is needed, the following doses should be used:

• 10 mg/d if stabilized on 441 mg every month
• 15 mg/d if stabilized on 662 mg every month, 882 mg every 6 weeks, or 1,064 mg every 2 months
• 20 mg/d if stabilized on 882 mg every month.³⁴

Olanzapine pamoate long-acting injection is a unique LAIA because it requires prescribers and patients to participate in a risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) program due the risk of post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome. It is administered every 2 to 4 weeks, with loading doses given for the first 2 months of treatment (Table 2³⁵). After 2 months, the patient can proceed to the maintenance dosing regimen.

Continue to: Currently, there is no concrete guidance...

Currently, there is no concrete guidance on how to address missed doses of olanzapine long-acting injection; however, the pharmacokinetics of this formulation allow flexibility in dosing intervals. Therapeutic levels are present after the first injection, and the medication reaches steady-state levels in 3 months.^35-37 As a result of its specific formulation, olanzapine pamoate long-acting injection provides sustained olanzapine pamoate plasma concentrations between injections, and has a half-life of 30 days.³⁵ Consequently, therapeutic levels of the medication are still present 2 to 4 weeks after an injection.³⁷ Additionally, clinically relevant plasma concentrations may be present 2 to 3 months after the last injection.³⁶

In light of this information, if a patient has not reached steady state and has missed an injection, he or she should receive the recommended loading dose schedule. If the patient has reached steady state and it has been ≤2 months since the last dose, he or she should receive the next dose as soon as possible. If steady state has been reached and it has been >2 months since the last injection, the patient should receive the recommended loading dosing for 2 months (Figure 9). Because of the risk of post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome, and because therapeutic levels are achieved after the first injection, oral olanzapine supplementation is not recommended.

Use a stepwise approach

In general, clinicians can use a stepwise approach to managing missed doses of LAIAs (Figure 10). First, establish the number of LAIA doses the patient had received prior to the last dose, and whether these injections were administered on schedule. This will help you determine if the patient is in the initiation or maintenance phase and/or has reached steady state. The second step is to establish the date of the last injection. Use objective tools, such as pharmacy records or the medical chart, to determine the date of the last injection, rather than relying on patient reporting. For the third step, calculate the time that has passed since the last LAIA dose. Once you have completed these steps, use the specific medication recommendations described in this article to address the missed dose.

Continue to: Address barriers to adherence

When addressing missed LAIA doses, be sure to identify any barriers that may have led to a missed injection. These might include:

• bothersome adverse effects
• transportation difficulties
• issues with insurance/medication coverage
• comorbidities (ie, alcohol/substance use disorders)
• cognitive and functional impairment caused by the patient’s illness
• difficulty with keeping track of appointments.

Clinicians can work closely with patients and/or caregivers to address any barriers to ensure that patients receive their injections in a timely fashion.

The goal: Reducing relapse

LAIAs improve medication adherence. Although nonadherence is less frequent with LAIAs than with oral antipsychotics, when a LAIA dose is missed, it is important to properly follow a stepwise approach based on the unique properties of the specific LAIA prescribed. Proper management of LAIA missed doses can prevent relapse and reoccurrence of schizophrenia symptoms, thus possibly avoiding future hospitalizations.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Brian Tschosik, JD, Mary Collen O’Rourke, MD, and Amanda Holloway, MD, for their assistance with this article.

Bottom Line

Although long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) greatly assist with adherence, these agents are effective only when missed doses are avoided. When addressing missed LAIA doses, use a stepwise approach that takes into consideration the unique properties of the specific LAIA prescribed.

Related Resources

• Haddad P, Lambert T, Lauriello J, eds. Antipsychotic long-acting injections. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2016.  
• Diefenderfer LA. When should you consider combining 2 long-acting injectable antipsychotics? Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(10):42-46.

Drug Brand Names 

Aripiprazole long-acting injection • Abilify Maintena
Aripiprazole lauroxil long-acting injection • Aristada
Fluphenazine decanoate • Prolixin decanoate  
Haloperidol decanoate • Haldol decanoate
Olanzapine pamoate long-acting injection • Zyprexa Relprevv
Paliperidone palmitate monthly long-acting injection • Invega Sustenna
Paliperidone palmitate 3-month long-acting injection • Invega Trinza  
Risperidone long-acting injection • Risperdal Consta

Antipsychotic agents are the mainstay of treatment for patients with schizophrenia,^1-3 and when taken regularly, they can greatly improve patient outcomes. Unfortunately, many studies have documented poor adherence to antipsychotic regimens in patients with schizophrenia, which often leads to an exacerbation of symptoms and preventable hospitalizations.^4-8 In order to improve adherence, many clinicians prescribe long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs).

LAIAs help improve adherence, but these benefits are seen only in patients who receive their injections within a specific time frame.^9-11 LAIAs administered outside of this time frame (missed doses) can lead to reoccurrence or exacerbation of symptoms. This article explains how to adequately manage missed LAIA doses.

First-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics

Two first-generation antipsychotics are available as a long-acting injectable formulation: haloperidol decanoate and fluphenazine decanoate. Due to the increased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms, use of these agents have decreased, and they are often less preferred than second-generation LAIAs. Furthermore, unlike many of the newer second-generation LAIAs, first-generation LAIAs lack literature on how to manage missed doses. Therefore, clinicians should analyze the pharmacokinetic properties of these agents (Table 1^12-28), as well as the patient’s medical history and clinical presentation, in order to determine how best to address missed doses.

Haloperidol decanoate plasma concentrations peak approximately 6 days after the injection.¹² The medication has a half-life of 3 weeks. One study found that haloperidol plasma concentrations were detectable 13 weeks after the discontinuation of haloperidol decanoate.¹⁷ This same study also found that the change in plasma levels from 3 to 6 weeks after the last dose was minimal.¹⁷ Based on these findings, Figure 1 summarizes our recommendations for addressing missed haloperidol decanoate doses.

Fluphenazine decanoate levels peak 24 hours after the injection.¹⁸ An estimated therapeutic range for fluphenazine is 0.2 to 2 ng/mL.^21-25 One study that evaluated fluphenazine decanoate levels following discontinuation after reaching steady state found there was no significant difference in plasma levels 6 weeks after the last dose of fluphenazine, but a significant decrease in levels 8 to 12 weeks after the last dose.²⁶ Other studies found that fluphenazine levels were detectable 21 to 24 weeks following fluphenazine decanoate discontinuation.^27,28 Based on these findings, Figure 2 summarizes our recommendations for addressing missed fluphenazine decanoate doses.

Continue to: Second-generation LAIAs

Six second-generation LAIAs are available in the United States. Compared with the first-generation LAIAs, second-generation LAIAs have more extensive guidance on how to address missed doses.

Risperidone long-acting injection. When addressing missed doses of risperidone long-acting injection, first determine whether the medication has reached steady state. Steady state occurs approximately after the fourth consecutive injection (approximately 2 months).²⁹

If a patient missed a dose but has not reached steady state, he or she should receive the next dose as well as oral antipsychotic supplementation for 3 weeks.³⁰ If the patient has reached steady state and if it has been ≤6 weeks since the last injection, give the next injection as soon as possible. However, if steady state has been reached and it has been >6 weeks since the last injection, give the next injection, along with 3 weeks of oral antipsychotic supplementation (Figure 3).

Paliperidone palmitate monthly long-acting injection. Once the initiation dosing phase of paliperidone palmitate monthly long-acting injection (PP1M) is completed, the maintenance dose is administered every 4 weeks. When addressing missed doses of PP1M, first determine whether the patient is in the initiation or maintenance dosing phase.³¹

Initiation phase. Patients are in the initiation dosing phase during the first 2 injections of PP1M. During the initiation phase, the patient first receives 234 mg and then 156 mg 1 week later, both in the deltoid muscle. One month later, the patient receives a maintenance dose of PP1M (in the deltoid or gluteal muscle). The second initiation injection may be given 4 days before or after the scheduled administration date. The initiation doses should be adjusted in patients with mild renal function (creatinine clearance 50 to 80 mL/min).³¹ Figure 4 summarizes the guidance for addressing a missed or delayed second injection during the initiation phase.

Continue to: Maintenance phase

Maintenance phase. During the maintenance phase, PP1M can be administered 7 days before or after the monthly due date. If the patient has missed a maintenance injection and it has been <6 weeks since the last dose, the maintenance injection can be given as soon as possible (Figure 5).³¹ If it has been 6 weeks to 6 months since the last injection, the patient should receive their prescribed maintenance dose as soon as possible and the same dose 1 week later, with both injections in the deltoid muscle. Following the second dose, the patient can resume their regular monthly maintenance schedule, in either the deltoid or gluteal muscle. For example, if the patient was maintained on 117 mg of PP1M and it had been 8 weeks since the last injection, the patient should receive 117 mg immediately, then 117 mg 1 week later, then 117 mg 1 month later. An exception to this is if a patient’s maintenance dose is 234 mg monthly. In this case, the patient should receive 156 mg of PP1M immediately, then 156 mg 1 week later, and then 234 mg 1 month later.³¹ If it has been >6 months since the last dose, the patient should start the initiation schedule as if he or she were receiving a new medication.³¹

Paliperidone palmitate 3-month long-acting injection (PP3M) should be administered every 3 months. This injection can be given 2 weeks before or after the date of the scheduled dose.³²

If the patient missed an injection and it has been <4 months since the last dose, the next scheduled dose should be given as soon as possible.³² If it has been 4 to 9 months since the last dose, the patient must return to PP1M for 2 booster injections 1 week apart. The dose of these PP1M booster injections depends on the dose of PP3M that the patient had been stabilized on:

• 78 mg if stabilized on 273 mg
• 117 mg if stabilized on 410 mg
• 156 mg if stabilized on 546 mg or 819 mg.³²

After the second booster dose, PP3M can be restarted 1 month later.³² If it has been >9 months since the last PP3M dose, the patient should be restarted on PP1M. PP3M can be reconsidered once the patient has been stabilized on PP1M for ≥4 months (Figure 6).³²

Continue to: Aripiprazole long-acting injection

Aripiprazole long-acting injection is administered every 4 weeks. If a patient misses an injection, first determine how many consecutive doses he or she has received.³³ If the patient has missed the second or third injection, and it has been <5 weeks since the last dose, give the next injection as soon as possible. If it has been >5 weeks, give the next injection as soon as possible, plus oral aripiprazole supplementation for 2 weeks (Figure 7).

If the patient has received ≥4 consecutive doses and misses a dose and it has been <6 weeks since the last dose, administer an injection as soon as possible. If it has been >6 weeks since the last dose, give the next injection as soon as possible, plus with oral aripiprazole supplementation for 2 weeks.

Aripiprazole lauroxil long-acting injection. Depending on the dose, aripiprazole lauroxil can be administered monthly, every 6 weeks, or every 2 months. Aripiprazole lauroxil can be administered 14 days before or after the scheduled dose.³⁴

The guidance for addressing missed or delayed doses of aripiprazole lauroxil differs depending on the dose the patient is stabilized on, and how long it has been since the last injection. Figure 8 summarizes how missed injections should be managed. When oral aripiprazole supplementation is needed, the following doses should be used:

• 10 mg/d if stabilized on 441 mg every month
• 15 mg/d if stabilized on 662 mg every month, 882 mg every 6 weeks, or 1,064 mg every 2 months
• 20 mg/d if stabilized on 882 mg every month.³⁴

Olanzapine pamoate long-acting injection is a unique LAIA because it requires prescribers and patients to participate in a risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) program due the risk of post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome. It is administered every 2 to 4 weeks, with loading doses given for the first 2 months of treatment (Table 2³⁵). After 2 months, the patient can proceed to the maintenance dosing regimen.

Continue to: Currently, there is no concrete guidance...

Currently, there is no concrete guidance on how to address missed doses of olanzapine long-acting injection; however, the pharmacokinetics of this formulation allow flexibility in dosing intervals. Therapeutic levels are present after the first injection, and the medication reaches steady-state levels in 3 months.^35-37 As a result of its specific formulation, olanzapine pamoate long-acting injection provides sustained olanzapine pamoate plasma concentrations between injections, and has a half-life of 30 days.³⁵ Consequently, therapeutic levels of the medication are still present 2 to 4 weeks after an injection.³⁷ Additionally, clinically relevant plasma concentrations may be present 2 to 3 months after the last injection.³⁶

In light of this information, if a patient has not reached steady state and has missed an injection, he or she should receive the recommended loading dose schedule. If the patient has reached steady state and it has been ≤2 months since the last dose, he or she should receive the next dose as soon as possible. If steady state has been reached and it has been >2 months since the last injection, the patient should receive the recommended loading dosing for 2 months (Figure 9). Because of the risk of post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome, and because therapeutic levels are achieved after the first injection, oral olanzapine supplementation is not recommended.

Use a stepwise approach

In general, clinicians can use a stepwise approach to managing missed doses of LAIAs (Figure 10). First, establish the number of LAIA doses the patient had received prior to the last dose, and whether these injections were administered on schedule. This will help you determine if the patient is in the initiation or maintenance phase and/or has reached steady state. The second step is to establish the date of the last injection. Use objective tools, such as pharmacy records or the medical chart, to determine the date of the last injection, rather than relying on patient reporting. For the third step, calculate the time that has passed since the last LAIA dose. Once you have completed these steps, use the specific medication recommendations described in this article to address the missed dose.

Continue to: Address barriers to adherence

When addressing missed LAIA doses, be sure to identify any barriers that may have led to a missed injection. These might include:

• bothersome adverse effects
• transportation difficulties
• issues with insurance/medication coverage
• comorbidities (ie, alcohol/substance use disorders)
• cognitive and functional impairment caused by the patient’s illness
• difficulty with keeping track of appointments.

Clinicians can work closely with patients and/or caregivers to address any barriers to ensure that patients receive their injections in a timely fashion.

The goal: Reducing relapse

LAIAs improve medication adherence. Although nonadherence is less frequent with LAIAs than with oral antipsychotics, when a LAIA dose is missed, it is important to properly follow a stepwise approach based on the unique properties of the specific LAIA prescribed. Proper management of LAIA missed doses can prevent relapse and reoccurrence of schizophrenia symptoms, thus possibly avoiding future hospitalizations.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Brian Tschosik, JD, Mary Collen O’Rourke, MD, and Amanda Holloway, MD, for their assistance with this article.

Bottom Line

Although long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) greatly assist with adherence, these agents are effective only when missed doses are avoided. When addressing missed LAIA doses, use a stepwise approach that takes into consideration the unique properties of the specific LAIA prescribed.

Related Resources

• Haddad P, Lambert T, Lauriello J, eds. Antipsychotic long-acting injections. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2016.  
• Diefenderfer LA. When should you consider combining 2 long-acting injectable antipsychotics? Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(10):42-46.

Drug Brand Names 

Aripiprazole long-acting injection • Abilify Maintena
Aripiprazole lauroxil long-acting injection • Aristada
Fluphenazine decanoate • Prolixin decanoate  
Haloperidol decanoate • Haldol decanoate
Olanzapine pamoate long-acting injection • Zyprexa Relprevv
Paliperidone palmitate monthly long-acting injection • Invega Sustenna
Paliperidone palmitate 3-month long-acting injection • Invega Trinza  
Risperidone long-acting injection • Risperdal Consta