COVID vaccines will have a new formulation in 2023, according to a decision announced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that will focus efforts on circulating variants. The move pushes last year’s bivalent vaccines out of circulation because they will no longer be authorized for use in the United States.

The updated mRNA vaccines for 2023-2024 are being revised to include a single component that corresponds to the Omicron variant XBB.1.5. Like the bivalents offered before, the new monovalents are being manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer.

The new vaccines are authorized for use in individuals age 6 months and older.  And the new options are being developed using a similar process as previous formulations, according to the FDA.
 

Targeting circulating variants

In recent studies, regulators point out the extent of neutralization observed by the updated vaccines against currently circulating viral variants causing COVID-19, including EG.5, BA.2.86, appears to be of a similar magnitude to the extent of neutralization observed with previous versions of the vaccines against corresponding prior variants.

“This suggests that the vaccines are a good match for protecting against the currently circulating COVID-19 variants,” according to the report.

Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have already received previously approved mRNA COVID vaccines, according to regulators who say the benefit-to-risk profile is well understood as they move forward with new formulations.

“Vaccination remains critical to public health and continued protection against serious consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “The public can be assured that these updated vaccines have met the agency’s rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. We very much encourage those who are eligible to consider getting vaccinated.”
 

Timing the effort

On Sept. 12 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that everyone 6 months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Updated vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna will be available later this week, according to the agency.

This article was updated 9/14/23.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID vaccines will have a new formulation in 2023, according to a decision announced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that will focus efforts on circulating variants. The move pushes last year’s bivalent vaccines out of circulation because they will no longer be authorized for use in the United States.

The updated mRNA vaccines for 2023-2024 are being revised to include a single component that corresponds to the Omicron variant XBB.1.5. Like the bivalents offered before, the new monovalents are being manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer.

The new vaccines are authorized for use in individuals age 6 months and older.  And the new options are being developed using a similar process as previous formulations, according to the FDA.
 

Targeting circulating variants

In recent studies, regulators point out the extent of neutralization observed by the updated vaccines against currently circulating viral variants causing COVID-19, including EG.5, BA.2.86, appears to be of a similar magnitude to the extent of neutralization observed with previous versions of the vaccines against corresponding prior variants.

“This suggests that the vaccines are a good match for protecting against the currently circulating COVID-19 variants,” according to the report.

Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have already received previously approved mRNA COVID vaccines, according to regulators who say the benefit-to-risk profile is well understood as they move forward with new formulations.

“Vaccination remains critical to public health and continued protection against serious consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “The public can be assured that these updated vaccines have met the agency’s rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. We very much encourage those who are eligible to consider getting vaccinated.”
 

Timing the effort

On Sept. 12 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that everyone 6 months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Updated vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna will be available later this week, according to the agency.

This article was updated 9/14/23.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID vaccines will have a new formulation in 2023, according to a decision announced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that will focus efforts on circulating variants. The move pushes last year’s bivalent vaccines out of circulation because they will no longer be authorized for use in the United States.

The updated mRNA vaccines for 2023-2024 are being revised to include a single component that corresponds to the Omicron variant XBB.1.5. Like the bivalents offered before, the new monovalents are being manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer.

The new vaccines are authorized for use in individuals age 6 months and older.  And the new options are being developed using a similar process as previous formulations, according to the FDA.
 

Targeting circulating variants

In recent studies, regulators point out the extent of neutralization observed by the updated vaccines against currently circulating viral variants causing COVID-19, including EG.5, BA.2.86, appears to be of a similar magnitude to the extent of neutralization observed with previous versions of the vaccines against corresponding prior variants.

“This suggests that the vaccines are a good match for protecting against the currently circulating COVID-19 variants,” according to the report.

Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have already received previously approved mRNA COVID vaccines, according to regulators who say the benefit-to-risk profile is well understood as they move forward with new formulations.

“Vaccination remains critical to public health and continued protection against serious consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “The public can be assured that these updated vaccines have met the agency’s rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. We very much encourage those who are eligible to consider getting vaccinated.”
 

Timing the effort

On Sept. 12 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that everyone 6 months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Updated vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna will be available later this week, according to the agency.

This article was updated 9/14/23.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Night owls” have an increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes and are more likely to smoke more, exercise less, and have poor sleep habits, compared with their “early bird” counterparts, according to a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The work focused on participants’ self-assessed chronotype – an individuals’ circadian preference, or natural preference to sleep and wake up earlier or later, commonly known as being an early bird or a night owl.

Analyzing the self-reported lifestyle behaviors and sleeping habits of more than 60,000 middle-aged female nurses, researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, found that those with a preference for waking up later had a 72% higher risk for diabetes and were 54% more likely to have unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, compared with participants who tended to wake up earlier.

After adjustment for six lifestyle factors – diet, alcohol use, body mass index (BMI), physical activity, smoking status, and sleep duration – the association between diabetes risk and evening chronotype weakened to a 19% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

In a subgroup analysis, this association was stronger among women who either had had no night shifts over the previous 2 years or had worked night shifts for less than 10 years in their careers. For nurses who had worked night shifts recently, the study found no association between evening chronotype and diabetes risk.

The participants, drawn from the Nurses’ Health Study II, were between 45 and 62 years age, with no history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes. Researchers followed the group from 2009 until 2017.
 

Is there a mismatch between natural circadian rhythm and work schedule?

The authors, led by Sina Kianersi, DVM, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest that their results may be linked to a mismatch between a person’s circadian rhythm and their physical and social environment – for example, if someone lives on a schedule opposite to their circadian preference.

In one 2015 study, female nurses who had worked daytime shifts for more than 10 years but had an evening chronotype had the highest diabetes risk, compared with early chronotypes (51% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes).

In a 2022 study, an evening chronotype was associated with a 30% elevated risk for type 2 diabetes. The authors speculated that circadian misalignment could be to blame – for example, being a night owl but working early morning – which can disrupt glycemic and lipid metabolism.

Previous studies have found that shorter or irregular sleep habits are associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes. Other studies have also found that people with an evening chronotype are more likely than early birds to have unhealthy eating habits, have lower levels of physical activity, and smoke and drink.

This new study did not find that an evening chronotype was associated with unhealthy drinking, which the authors defined as having one or more drinks per day.

In an accompanying editorial, two physicians from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston caution that the statistical design of the study limits its ability to establish causation.

“Chronotype could change later, which might correlate with lifestyle changes,” write Kehuan Lin, MS, Mingyang Song, MBBS, and Edward Giovannucci, MD. “Experimental trials are required to determine whether chronotype is a marker of unhealthy lifestyle or an independent determinant.”

They also suggest that psychological factors and the type of work being performed by the participants could be potential confounders.

The authors of the study note that their findings might not be generalizable to groups other than middle-aged White female nurses. The study population also had a relatively high level of education and were socioeconomically advantaged.

Self-reporting chronotypes with a single question could also result in misclassification and measurement error, the authors acknowledge.

The findings underscore the value of assessing an individuals’ chronotype for scheduling shift work – for example, assigning night owls to night shifts may improve their metabolic health and sleeping habits, according to the authors of the study.

“Given the importance of lifestyle modification in diabetes prevention, future research is warranted to investigate whether improving lifestyle behaviors could effectively reduce diabetes risk in persons with an evening chronotype,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the European Research Council.

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

“Night owls” have an increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes and are more likely to smoke more, exercise less, and have poor sleep habits, compared with their “early bird” counterparts, according to a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The work focused on participants’ self-assessed chronotype – an individuals’ circadian preference, or natural preference to sleep and wake up earlier or later, commonly known as being an early bird or a night owl.

Analyzing the self-reported lifestyle behaviors and sleeping habits of more than 60,000 middle-aged female nurses, researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, found that those with a preference for waking up later had a 72% higher risk for diabetes and were 54% more likely to have unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, compared with participants who tended to wake up earlier.

After adjustment for six lifestyle factors – diet, alcohol use, body mass index (BMI), physical activity, smoking status, and sleep duration – the association between diabetes risk and evening chronotype weakened to a 19% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

In a subgroup analysis, this association was stronger among women who either had had no night shifts over the previous 2 years or had worked night shifts for less than 10 years in their careers. For nurses who had worked night shifts recently, the study found no association between evening chronotype and diabetes risk.

The participants, drawn from the Nurses’ Health Study II, were between 45 and 62 years age, with no history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes. Researchers followed the group from 2009 until 2017.
 

Is there a mismatch between natural circadian rhythm and work schedule?

The authors, led by Sina Kianersi, DVM, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest that their results may be linked to a mismatch between a person’s circadian rhythm and their physical and social environment – for example, if someone lives on a schedule opposite to their circadian preference.

In one 2015 study, female nurses who had worked daytime shifts for more than 10 years but had an evening chronotype had the highest diabetes risk, compared with early chronotypes (51% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes).

In a 2022 study, an evening chronotype was associated with a 30% elevated risk for type 2 diabetes. The authors speculated that circadian misalignment could be to blame – for example, being a night owl but working early morning – which can disrupt glycemic and lipid metabolism.

Previous studies have found that shorter or irregular sleep habits are associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes. Other studies have also found that people with an evening chronotype are more likely than early birds to have unhealthy eating habits, have lower levels of physical activity, and smoke and drink.

This new study did not find that an evening chronotype was associated with unhealthy drinking, which the authors defined as having one or more drinks per day.

In an accompanying editorial, two physicians from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston caution that the statistical design of the study limits its ability to establish causation.

“Chronotype could change later, which might correlate with lifestyle changes,” write Kehuan Lin, MS, Mingyang Song, MBBS, and Edward Giovannucci, MD. “Experimental trials are required to determine whether chronotype is a marker of unhealthy lifestyle or an independent determinant.”

They also suggest that psychological factors and the type of work being performed by the participants could be potential confounders.

The authors of the study note that their findings might not be generalizable to groups other than middle-aged White female nurses. The study population also had a relatively high level of education and were socioeconomically advantaged.

Self-reporting chronotypes with a single question could also result in misclassification and measurement error, the authors acknowledge.

The findings underscore the value of assessing an individuals’ chronotype for scheduling shift work – for example, assigning night owls to night shifts may improve their metabolic health and sleeping habits, according to the authors of the study.

“Given the importance of lifestyle modification in diabetes prevention, future research is warranted to investigate whether improving lifestyle behaviors could effectively reduce diabetes risk in persons with an evening chronotype,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the European Research Council.

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

“Night owls” have an increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes and are more likely to smoke more, exercise less, and have poor sleep habits, compared with their “early bird” counterparts, according to a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The work focused on participants’ self-assessed chronotype – an individuals’ circadian preference, or natural preference to sleep and wake up earlier or later, commonly known as being an early bird or a night owl.

Analyzing the self-reported lifestyle behaviors and sleeping habits of more than 60,000 middle-aged female nurses, researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, found that those with a preference for waking up later had a 72% higher risk for diabetes and were 54% more likely to have unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, compared with participants who tended to wake up earlier.

After adjustment for six lifestyle factors – diet, alcohol use, body mass index (BMI), physical activity, smoking status, and sleep duration – the association between diabetes risk and evening chronotype weakened to a 19% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

In a subgroup analysis, this association was stronger among women who either had had no night shifts over the previous 2 years or had worked night shifts for less than 10 years in their careers. For nurses who had worked night shifts recently, the study found no association between evening chronotype and diabetes risk.

The participants, drawn from the Nurses’ Health Study II, were between 45 and 62 years age, with no history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes. Researchers followed the group from 2009 until 2017.
 

Is there a mismatch between natural circadian rhythm and work schedule?

The authors, led by Sina Kianersi, DVM, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest that their results may be linked to a mismatch between a person’s circadian rhythm and their physical and social environment – for example, if someone lives on a schedule opposite to their circadian preference.

In one 2015 study, female nurses who had worked daytime shifts for more than 10 years but had an evening chronotype had the highest diabetes risk, compared with early chronotypes (51% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes).

In a 2022 study, an evening chronotype was associated with a 30% elevated risk for type 2 diabetes. The authors speculated that circadian misalignment could be to blame – for example, being a night owl but working early morning – which can disrupt glycemic and lipid metabolism.

Previous studies have found that shorter or irregular sleep habits are associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes. Other studies have also found that people with an evening chronotype are more likely than early birds to have unhealthy eating habits, have lower levels of physical activity, and smoke and drink.

This new study did not find that an evening chronotype was associated with unhealthy drinking, which the authors defined as having one or more drinks per day.

In an accompanying editorial, two physicians from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston caution that the statistical design of the study limits its ability to establish causation.

“Chronotype could change later, which might correlate with lifestyle changes,” write Kehuan Lin, MS, Mingyang Song, MBBS, and Edward Giovannucci, MD. “Experimental trials are required to determine whether chronotype is a marker of unhealthy lifestyle or an independent determinant.”

They also suggest that psychological factors and the type of work being performed by the participants could be potential confounders.

The authors of the study note that their findings might not be generalizable to groups other than middle-aged White female nurses. The study population also had a relatively high level of education and were socioeconomically advantaged.

Self-reporting chronotypes with a single question could also result in misclassification and measurement error, the authors acknowledge.

The findings underscore the value of assessing an individuals’ chronotype for scheduling shift work – for example, assigning night owls to night shifts may improve their metabolic health and sleeping habits, according to the authors of the study.

“Given the importance of lifestyle modification in diabetes prevention, future research is warranted to investigate whether improving lifestyle behaviors could effectively reduce diabetes risk in persons with an evening chronotype,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the European Research Council.

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

Recorded Aug. 28, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

John M. Mandrola, MD: I’m here at the European Society of Cardiology meeting, and I’m very excited to have two colleagues whom I met at the Western Atrial Fibrillation Symposium (Western AFib) and who presented the CASTLE-HTx study. This is Christian Sohns and Philipp Sommer, and the CASTLE-HTx study is very exciting.

Before I get into that, I really want to introduce the concept of atrial fibrillation in heart failure. I like to say that there are two big populations of patients with atrial fibrillation, and the vast majority can be treated slowly with reassurance and education. There is a group of patients who have heart failure who, when they develop atrial fibrillation, can degenerate rapidly. The CASTLE-HTx study looked at catheter ablation versus medical therapy in patients with advanced heart failure.

Christian, why don’t you tell us the top-line results and what you found.
 

CASTLE-HTx key findings

Christian Sohns, MD, PhD: Thanks, first of all, for mentioning this special cohort of patients in end-stage heart failure, which is very important. The endpoint of the study was a composite of death from any cause or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and heart transplantation. These are very hard, strong clinical endpoints, not the rate of rehospitalization or something like that.

Catheter ablation was superior to medical therapy alone in terms of this composite endpoint. That was driven by cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality, which highlights the fact that you should always consider atrial fibrillation ablation in the end-stage heart failure cohort. The findings were driven by the fact that we saw left ventricular reverse remodeling and the reduction of atrial fibrillation in these patients.

Dr. Mandrola: Tell me about how it came about. It was conducted at your center. Who were these patients?

Philipp Sommer, MD: As one of the biggest centers for heart transplantations all over Europe, with roughly 100 transplants per year, we had many patients being referred to our center with the questions of whether those patients are eligible for a heart transplantation. Not all of the patients in our study were listed for a transplant, but all of them were admitted in that end-stage heart failure status to evaluate their eligibility for transplant.

If we look at the baseline data of those patients, they had an ejection fraction of 29%. They had a 6-minute walk test as a functional capacity parameter of around 300 m. Approximately two thirds of them were New York Heart Association class III and IV, which is significantly worse than what we saw in the previous studies dealing with heart failure patients.

I think overall, if you also look at NT-proBNP levels, this is a really sick patient population where some people might doubt if they should admit and refer those patients for an ablation procedure. Therefore, it’s really interesting and fascinating to see the results.

Dr. Mandrola: I did read in the manuscript, and I heard from you, that these were recruited as outpatients. So they were stable outpatients who were referred to the center for consideration of an LVAD or transplant?

Dr. Sohns: The definition of stability is very difficult in these patients because they have hospital stays, they have a history of drug therapy, and they have a history of interventions also behind them – not atrial fibrillation ablation, but others. I think these patients are referred because the referring physicians are done with the case. They can no longer offer any option to the patients other than surgical treatment, assist device, pump implantation, or transplantation.

If you look at the guidelines, they do not comment on atrial fibrillation ablation in this cohort of patients. Also, they have different recommendations between the American societies and the European societies regarding what is end-stage heart failure and how to treat these patients. Therefore, it was a big benefit of CASTLE-HTx that we randomized a cohort of patients with advanced end-stage heart failure.
 

How can AFib ablation have such big, early effects?

Dr. Mandrola: These are very clinically significant findings, with large effect sizes and very early separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves. How do you explain how dramatic an effect that is, and how early of an effect?

Dr. Sommer: That’s one of the key questions at the end of the day. I think our job basically was to provide the data and to ensure that the data are clean and that it’s all perfectly done. The interpretation of these data is really kind of difficult, although we do not have the 100% perfect and obvious explanation why the curves separated so early. Our view on that is that we are talking about a pretty fragile patient population, so little differences like having a tachyarrhythmia of 110 day in, day out or being in sinus rhythm of 60 can make a huge difference. That’s obviously pretty early.

The one that remains in tachyarrhythmia will deteriorate and will require an LVAD after a couple of months, and the one that you may keep in sinus rhythm, even with reduced atrial fibrillation burden – not zero, but reduced atrial fibrillation burden – and improved LV function, all of a sudden this patient will still remain on a low level of being stable, but he or she will remain stable and will not require any surgical interventions for the next 1.5-2 years. If we can manage to do this, just postponing the natural cause of the disease, I think that is a great benefit for the patient.

Dr. Mandrola: One of the things that comes up in our center is that I look at some of these patients and think, there’s no way I can put this patient under general anesthetic and do all of this. Your ablation procedure wasn’t that extensive, was it?

Dr. Sohns: On the one hand, no. On the other hand, yes. You need to take into consideration that it has been performed by experienced physicians with experience in heart failure treatment and atrial fibrillation in heart transplantation centers, though it›s not sure that we can transfer these results one-to-one to all other centers in the world.

It is very clear that we have almost no major complications in these patients. We were able to do these ablation procedures without general anesthesia. We have 60% of patients who had pulmonary vein isolation only and 40% of patients who have PVI and additional therapy. We have a procedure duration of almost 90 minutes during radiofrequency ablation.

We have different categories. When you talk about the different patient cohorts, we also see different stages of myocardial tissue damage, which will be part of another publication for sure. It is, in part, surprising how normal some of the atria were despite having a volume of 180 mL, but they had no fibrosis. That was very interesting.

Dr. Mandrola: How did the persistent vs paroxysmal atrial fibrillation sort out? Were these mostly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?

Dr. Sommer: Two-thirds were persistent. It would be expected in this patient population that you would not find so many paroxysmal cases. I think it›s very important what Christian was just mentioning that when we discussed the trial design, we were anticipating problems with the sedation, for example. With the follow-up of those procedures, would they decompensate because of the fluid that you have to deliver during such a procedure.

We were quite surprised at the end of the day that the procedures were quite straightforward. Fortunately, we had no major complications. I think there were four complications in the 100 ablated patients. I think we were really positive about how the procedures turned out.

I should mention that one of the exclusion criteria was a left atrial diameter of about 60 mm. The huge ones may be very diseased, and maybe the hopeless ones were excluded from the study. Below 60 mm, we did the ablation.
 

Rhythm control

Dr. Mandrola: One of my colleagues, who is even more skeptical than me, wanted me to ask you, why wouldn’t you take a patient with persistent atrial fibrillation who had heart failure and just cardiovert and use amiodarone and try and maintain sinus rhythm that way?

Dr. Sohns: It is important to mention that 50% of the patients have already had amiodarone before they were randomized and enrolled for the trial. It might bring you a couple of minutes or a couple of hours [of relief], but the patients would get recurrence.

It was very interesting also, and this is in line with the data from Jason Andrade, who demonstrated that we were able to reduce the percentage of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation to paroxysmal. We did a down-staging of the underlying disease. This is not possible with cardioversion or drugs, for example.

Dr. Sommer: What I really like about that question and that comment is the idea that rhythm control in this subset of patients obviously has a role and an importance. It may be a cardioversion initially, giving amiodarone if they didn’t have that before, and you can keep the patient in sinus rhythm with this therapy, I think we’re reaching the same goal.

I think the critical point to get into the mind of physicians who treat heart failure is that sinus rhythm is beneficial, however you get there. Ablation, of course, as in other studies, is the most powerful tool to get there. Cardioversion can be a really good thing to do; you just have to think about it and consider it.

Dr. Mandrola: I do want to say to everybody that there is a tension sometimes between the heart failure community and the electrophysiology community. I think the ideal situation is that we work together, because I think that we can help with the maintenance of sinus rhythm. The control group mortality at 1 year was 20%, and I’ve heard people say that that’s not advanced heart failure. Advanced heart failure patients have much higher mortality than that. My colleague who is a heart failure specialist was criticizing a selection bias in picking the best patients. How would you answer that?

Dr. Sohns: There are data available from Eurotransplant, for example, that the waiting list mortality is 18%, so I think we are almost in line with this 20% mortality in this conservative group. You cannot generalize it. All these patients have different histories. We have 60% dilated cardiomyopathy and 40% ischemic cardiomyopathy. I think it is a very representative group in contrast to your friend who suggests that it is not.

Dr. Sommer: What I like about the discussion is that some approach us to say that the mortality in the control group is much too high – like, what are you doing with those patients that you create so many endpoints? Then others say that it’s not high enough because that is not end-stage heart failure. Come on! We have a patient cohort that is very well described and very well characterized.

If the label is end-stage heart failure, advanced heart failure, or whatever, they are sicker than the patients that we had in earlier trials. The patients that we treated were mostly excluded from all other trials. We opened the door. We found a clear result. I think everyone can see whatever you like to see.

Dr. Mandrola: What would your take-home message be after having done this trial design, the trial was conducted in your single center, and you come up with these amazing results? What would your message be to the whole community?

Dr. Sohns: Taking into consideration how severely sick these patients are, I can just repeat it: They are one step away from death, more or less, or from surgical intervention that can prolong their life. You should also consider that there are options like atrial fibrillation ablation that can buy time, postpone the natural course, or even in some patients replace the destination therapy. Therefore, in my opinion the next guidelines should recommend that every patient should carefully be checked for sinus rhythm before bringing these patients into the environment of transplantation.

Dr. Sommer: My interpretation is that we have to try to bring into physicians’ minds that besides a well-established and well-documented effect of drug therapy with the fabulous four, we may now have the fabulous five, including an ablation option for patients with atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. Dr. Sohns is deputy director of the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW, Ruhr University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. Dr. Sommer is professor of cardiology at the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW. Dr. Mandrola reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sohns reported receiving research funding from Else Kröner–Fresenius–Stiftung. Dr. Sommer reported consulting with Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic USA.


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

Recorded Aug. 28, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

John M. Mandrola, MD: I’m here at the European Society of Cardiology meeting, and I’m very excited to have two colleagues whom I met at the Western Atrial Fibrillation Symposium (Western AFib) and who presented the CASTLE-HTx study. This is Christian Sohns and Philipp Sommer, and the CASTLE-HTx study is very exciting.

Before I get into that, I really want to introduce the concept of atrial fibrillation in heart failure. I like to say that there are two big populations of patients with atrial fibrillation, and the vast majority can be treated slowly with reassurance and education. There is a group of patients who have heart failure who, when they develop atrial fibrillation, can degenerate rapidly. The CASTLE-HTx study looked at catheter ablation versus medical therapy in patients with advanced heart failure.

Christian, why don’t you tell us the top-line results and what you found.
 

CASTLE-HTx key findings

Christian Sohns, MD, PhD: Thanks, first of all, for mentioning this special cohort of patients in end-stage heart failure, which is very important. The endpoint of the study was a composite of death from any cause or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and heart transplantation. These are very hard, strong clinical endpoints, not the rate of rehospitalization or something like that.

Catheter ablation was superior to medical therapy alone in terms of this composite endpoint. That was driven by cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality, which highlights the fact that you should always consider atrial fibrillation ablation in the end-stage heart failure cohort. The findings were driven by the fact that we saw left ventricular reverse remodeling and the reduction of atrial fibrillation in these patients.

Dr. Mandrola: Tell me about how it came about. It was conducted at your center. Who were these patients?

Philipp Sommer, MD: As one of the biggest centers for heart transplantations all over Europe, with roughly 100 transplants per year, we had many patients being referred to our center with the questions of whether those patients are eligible for a heart transplantation. Not all of the patients in our study were listed for a transplant, but all of them were admitted in that end-stage heart failure status to evaluate their eligibility for transplant.

If we look at the baseline data of those patients, they had an ejection fraction of 29%. They had a 6-minute walk test as a functional capacity parameter of around 300 m. Approximately two thirds of them were New York Heart Association class III and IV, which is significantly worse than what we saw in the previous studies dealing with heart failure patients.

I think overall, if you also look at NT-proBNP levels, this is a really sick patient population where some people might doubt if they should admit and refer those patients for an ablation procedure. Therefore, it’s really interesting and fascinating to see the results.

Dr. Mandrola: I did read in the manuscript, and I heard from you, that these were recruited as outpatients. So they were stable outpatients who were referred to the center for consideration of an LVAD or transplant?

Dr. Sohns: The definition of stability is very difficult in these patients because they have hospital stays, they have a history of drug therapy, and they have a history of interventions also behind them – not atrial fibrillation ablation, but others. I think these patients are referred because the referring physicians are done with the case. They can no longer offer any option to the patients other than surgical treatment, assist device, pump implantation, or transplantation.

If you look at the guidelines, they do not comment on atrial fibrillation ablation in this cohort of patients. Also, they have different recommendations between the American societies and the European societies regarding what is end-stage heart failure and how to treat these patients. Therefore, it was a big benefit of CASTLE-HTx that we randomized a cohort of patients with advanced end-stage heart failure.
 

How can AFib ablation have such big, early effects?

Dr. Mandrola: These are very clinically significant findings, with large effect sizes and very early separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves. How do you explain how dramatic an effect that is, and how early of an effect?

Dr. Sommer: That’s one of the key questions at the end of the day. I think our job basically was to provide the data and to ensure that the data are clean and that it’s all perfectly done. The interpretation of these data is really kind of difficult, although we do not have the 100% perfect and obvious explanation why the curves separated so early. Our view on that is that we are talking about a pretty fragile patient population, so little differences like having a tachyarrhythmia of 110 day in, day out or being in sinus rhythm of 60 can make a huge difference. That’s obviously pretty early.

The one that remains in tachyarrhythmia will deteriorate and will require an LVAD after a couple of months, and the one that you may keep in sinus rhythm, even with reduced atrial fibrillation burden – not zero, but reduced atrial fibrillation burden – and improved LV function, all of a sudden this patient will still remain on a low level of being stable, but he or she will remain stable and will not require any surgical interventions for the next 1.5-2 years. If we can manage to do this, just postponing the natural cause of the disease, I think that is a great benefit for the patient.

Dr. Mandrola: One of the things that comes up in our center is that I look at some of these patients and think, there’s no way I can put this patient under general anesthetic and do all of this. Your ablation procedure wasn’t that extensive, was it?

Dr. Sohns: On the one hand, no. On the other hand, yes. You need to take into consideration that it has been performed by experienced physicians with experience in heart failure treatment and atrial fibrillation in heart transplantation centers, though it›s not sure that we can transfer these results one-to-one to all other centers in the world.

It is very clear that we have almost no major complications in these patients. We were able to do these ablation procedures without general anesthesia. We have 60% of patients who had pulmonary vein isolation only and 40% of patients who have PVI and additional therapy. We have a procedure duration of almost 90 minutes during radiofrequency ablation.

We have different categories. When you talk about the different patient cohorts, we also see different stages of myocardial tissue damage, which will be part of another publication for sure. It is, in part, surprising how normal some of the atria were despite having a volume of 180 mL, but they had no fibrosis. That was very interesting.

Dr. Mandrola: How did the persistent vs paroxysmal atrial fibrillation sort out? Were these mostly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?

Dr. Sommer: Two-thirds were persistent. It would be expected in this patient population that you would not find so many paroxysmal cases. I think it›s very important what Christian was just mentioning that when we discussed the trial design, we were anticipating problems with the sedation, for example. With the follow-up of those procedures, would they decompensate because of the fluid that you have to deliver during such a procedure.

We were quite surprised at the end of the day that the procedures were quite straightforward. Fortunately, we had no major complications. I think there were four complications in the 100 ablated patients. I think we were really positive about how the procedures turned out.

I should mention that one of the exclusion criteria was a left atrial diameter of about 60 mm. The huge ones may be very diseased, and maybe the hopeless ones were excluded from the study. Below 60 mm, we did the ablation.
 

Rhythm control

Dr. Mandrola: One of my colleagues, who is even more skeptical than me, wanted me to ask you, why wouldn’t you take a patient with persistent atrial fibrillation who had heart failure and just cardiovert and use amiodarone and try and maintain sinus rhythm that way?

Dr. Sohns: It is important to mention that 50% of the patients have already had amiodarone before they were randomized and enrolled for the trial. It might bring you a couple of minutes or a couple of hours [of relief], but the patients would get recurrence.

It was very interesting also, and this is in line with the data from Jason Andrade, who demonstrated that we were able to reduce the percentage of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation to paroxysmal. We did a down-staging of the underlying disease. This is not possible with cardioversion or drugs, for example.

Dr. Sommer: What I really like about that question and that comment is the idea that rhythm control in this subset of patients obviously has a role and an importance. It may be a cardioversion initially, giving amiodarone if they didn’t have that before, and you can keep the patient in sinus rhythm with this therapy, I think we’re reaching the same goal.

I think the critical point to get into the mind of physicians who treat heart failure is that sinus rhythm is beneficial, however you get there. Ablation, of course, as in other studies, is the most powerful tool to get there. Cardioversion can be a really good thing to do; you just have to think about it and consider it.

Dr. Mandrola: I do want to say to everybody that there is a tension sometimes between the heart failure community and the electrophysiology community. I think the ideal situation is that we work together, because I think that we can help with the maintenance of sinus rhythm. The control group mortality at 1 year was 20%, and I’ve heard people say that that’s not advanced heart failure. Advanced heart failure patients have much higher mortality than that. My colleague who is a heart failure specialist was criticizing a selection bias in picking the best patients. How would you answer that?

Dr. Sohns: There are data available from Eurotransplant, for example, that the waiting list mortality is 18%, so I think we are almost in line with this 20% mortality in this conservative group. You cannot generalize it. All these patients have different histories. We have 60% dilated cardiomyopathy and 40% ischemic cardiomyopathy. I think it is a very representative group in contrast to your friend who suggests that it is not.

Dr. Sommer: What I like about the discussion is that some approach us to say that the mortality in the control group is much too high – like, what are you doing with those patients that you create so many endpoints? Then others say that it’s not high enough because that is not end-stage heart failure. Come on! We have a patient cohort that is very well described and very well characterized.

If the label is end-stage heart failure, advanced heart failure, or whatever, they are sicker than the patients that we had in earlier trials. The patients that we treated were mostly excluded from all other trials. We opened the door. We found a clear result. I think everyone can see whatever you like to see.

Dr. Mandrola: What would your take-home message be after having done this trial design, the trial was conducted in your single center, and you come up with these amazing results? What would your message be to the whole community?

Dr. Sohns: Taking into consideration how severely sick these patients are, I can just repeat it: They are one step away from death, more or less, or from surgical intervention that can prolong their life. You should also consider that there are options like atrial fibrillation ablation that can buy time, postpone the natural course, or even in some patients replace the destination therapy. Therefore, in my opinion the next guidelines should recommend that every patient should carefully be checked for sinus rhythm before bringing these patients into the environment of transplantation.

Dr. Sommer: My interpretation is that we have to try to bring into physicians’ minds that besides a well-established and well-documented effect of drug therapy with the fabulous four, we may now have the fabulous five, including an ablation option for patients with atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. Dr. Sohns is deputy director of the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW, Ruhr University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. Dr. Sommer is professor of cardiology at the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW. Dr. Mandrola reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sohns reported receiving research funding from Else Kröner–Fresenius–Stiftung. Dr. Sommer reported consulting with Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic USA.


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

Recorded Aug. 28, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

John M. Mandrola, MD: I’m here at the European Society of Cardiology meeting, and I’m very excited to have two colleagues whom I met at the Western Atrial Fibrillation Symposium (Western AFib) and who presented the CASTLE-HTx study. This is Christian Sohns and Philipp Sommer, and the CASTLE-HTx study is very exciting.

Before I get into that, I really want to introduce the concept of atrial fibrillation in heart failure. I like to say that there are two big populations of patients with atrial fibrillation, and the vast majority can be treated slowly with reassurance and education. There is a group of patients who have heart failure who, when they develop atrial fibrillation, can degenerate rapidly. The CASTLE-HTx study looked at catheter ablation versus medical therapy in patients with advanced heart failure.

Christian, why don’t you tell us the top-line results and what you found.
 

CASTLE-HTx key findings

Christian Sohns, MD, PhD: Thanks, first of all, for mentioning this special cohort of patients in end-stage heart failure, which is very important. The endpoint of the study was a composite of death from any cause or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and heart transplantation. These are very hard, strong clinical endpoints, not the rate of rehospitalization or something like that.

Catheter ablation was superior to medical therapy alone in terms of this composite endpoint. That was driven by cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality, which highlights the fact that you should always consider atrial fibrillation ablation in the end-stage heart failure cohort. The findings were driven by the fact that we saw left ventricular reverse remodeling and the reduction of atrial fibrillation in these patients.

Dr. Mandrola: Tell me about how it came about. It was conducted at your center. Who were these patients?

Philipp Sommer, MD: As one of the biggest centers for heart transplantations all over Europe, with roughly 100 transplants per year, we had many patients being referred to our center with the questions of whether those patients are eligible for a heart transplantation. Not all of the patients in our study were listed for a transplant, but all of them were admitted in that end-stage heart failure status to evaluate their eligibility for transplant.

If we look at the baseline data of those patients, they had an ejection fraction of 29%. They had a 6-minute walk test as a functional capacity parameter of around 300 m. Approximately two thirds of them were New York Heart Association class III and IV, which is significantly worse than what we saw in the previous studies dealing with heart failure patients.

I think overall, if you also look at NT-proBNP levels, this is a really sick patient population where some people might doubt if they should admit and refer those patients for an ablation procedure. Therefore, it’s really interesting and fascinating to see the results.

Dr. Mandrola: I did read in the manuscript, and I heard from you, that these were recruited as outpatients. So they were stable outpatients who were referred to the center for consideration of an LVAD or transplant?

Dr. Sohns: The definition of stability is very difficult in these patients because they have hospital stays, they have a history of drug therapy, and they have a history of interventions also behind them – not atrial fibrillation ablation, but others. I think these patients are referred because the referring physicians are done with the case. They can no longer offer any option to the patients other than surgical treatment, assist device, pump implantation, or transplantation.

If you look at the guidelines, they do not comment on atrial fibrillation ablation in this cohort of patients. Also, they have different recommendations between the American societies and the European societies regarding what is end-stage heart failure and how to treat these patients. Therefore, it was a big benefit of CASTLE-HTx that we randomized a cohort of patients with advanced end-stage heart failure.
 

How can AFib ablation have such big, early effects?

Dr. Mandrola: These are very clinically significant findings, with large effect sizes and very early separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves. How do you explain how dramatic an effect that is, and how early of an effect?

Dr. Sommer: That’s one of the key questions at the end of the day. I think our job basically was to provide the data and to ensure that the data are clean and that it’s all perfectly done. The interpretation of these data is really kind of difficult, although we do not have the 100% perfect and obvious explanation why the curves separated so early. Our view on that is that we are talking about a pretty fragile patient population, so little differences like having a tachyarrhythmia of 110 day in, day out or being in sinus rhythm of 60 can make a huge difference. That’s obviously pretty early.

The one that remains in tachyarrhythmia will deteriorate and will require an LVAD after a couple of months, and the one that you may keep in sinus rhythm, even with reduced atrial fibrillation burden – not zero, but reduced atrial fibrillation burden – and improved LV function, all of a sudden this patient will still remain on a low level of being stable, but he or she will remain stable and will not require any surgical interventions for the next 1.5-2 years. If we can manage to do this, just postponing the natural cause of the disease, I think that is a great benefit for the patient.

Dr. Mandrola: One of the things that comes up in our center is that I look at some of these patients and think, there’s no way I can put this patient under general anesthetic and do all of this. Your ablation procedure wasn’t that extensive, was it?

Dr. Sohns: On the one hand, no. On the other hand, yes. You need to take into consideration that it has been performed by experienced physicians with experience in heart failure treatment and atrial fibrillation in heart transplantation centers, though it›s not sure that we can transfer these results one-to-one to all other centers in the world.

It is very clear that we have almost no major complications in these patients. We were able to do these ablation procedures without general anesthesia. We have 60% of patients who had pulmonary vein isolation only and 40% of patients who have PVI and additional therapy. We have a procedure duration of almost 90 minutes during radiofrequency ablation.

We have different categories. When you talk about the different patient cohorts, we also see different stages of myocardial tissue damage, which will be part of another publication for sure. It is, in part, surprising how normal some of the atria were despite having a volume of 180 mL, but they had no fibrosis. That was very interesting.

Dr. Mandrola: How did the persistent vs paroxysmal atrial fibrillation sort out? Were these mostly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?

Dr. Sommer: Two-thirds were persistent. It would be expected in this patient population that you would not find so many paroxysmal cases. I think it›s very important what Christian was just mentioning that when we discussed the trial design, we were anticipating problems with the sedation, for example. With the follow-up of those procedures, would they decompensate because of the fluid that you have to deliver during such a procedure.

We were quite surprised at the end of the day that the procedures were quite straightforward. Fortunately, we had no major complications. I think there were four complications in the 100 ablated patients. I think we were really positive about how the procedures turned out.

I should mention that one of the exclusion criteria was a left atrial diameter of about 60 mm. The huge ones may be very diseased, and maybe the hopeless ones were excluded from the study. Below 60 mm, we did the ablation.
 

Rhythm control

Dr. Mandrola: One of my colleagues, who is even more skeptical than me, wanted me to ask you, why wouldn’t you take a patient with persistent atrial fibrillation who had heart failure and just cardiovert and use amiodarone and try and maintain sinus rhythm that way?

Dr. Sohns: It is important to mention that 50% of the patients have already had amiodarone before they were randomized and enrolled for the trial. It might bring you a couple of minutes or a couple of hours [of relief], but the patients would get recurrence.

It was very interesting also, and this is in line with the data from Jason Andrade, who demonstrated that we were able to reduce the percentage of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation to paroxysmal. We did a down-staging of the underlying disease. This is not possible with cardioversion or drugs, for example.

Dr. Sommer: What I really like about that question and that comment is the idea that rhythm control in this subset of patients obviously has a role and an importance. It may be a cardioversion initially, giving amiodarone if they didn’t have that before, and you can keep the patient in sinus rhythm with this therapy, I think we’re reaching the same goal.

I think the critical point to get into the mind of physicians who treat heart failure is that sinus rhythm is beneficial, however you get there. Ablation, of course, as in other studies, is the most powerful tool to get there. Cardioversion can be a really good thing to do; you just have to think about it and consider it.

Dr. Mandrola: I do want to say to everybody that there is a tension sometimes between the heart failure community and the electrophysiology community. I think the ideal situation is that we work together, because I think that we can help with the maintenance of sinus rhythm. The control group mortality at 1 year was 20%, and I’ve heard people say that that’s not advanced heart failure. Advanced heart failure patients have much higher mortality than that. My colleague who is a heart failure specialist was criticizing a selection bias in picking the best patients. How would you answer that?

Dr. Sohns: There are data available from Eurotransplant, for example, that the waiting list mortality is 18%, so I think we are almost in line with this 20% mortality in this conservative group. You cannot generalize it. All these patients have different histories. We have 60% dilated cardiomyopathy and 40% ischemic cardiomyopathy. I think it is a very representative group in contrast to your friend who suggests that it is not.

Dr. Sommer: What I like about the discussion is that some approach us to say that the mortality in the control group is much too high – like, what are you doing with those patients that you create so many endpoints? Then others say that it’s not high enough because that is not end-stage heart failure. Come on! We have a patient cohort that is very well described and very well characterized.

If the label is end-stage heart failure, advanced heart failure, or whatever, they are sicker than the patients that we had in earlier trials. The patients that we treated were mostly excluded from all other trials. We opened the door. We found a clear result. I think everyone can see whatever you like to see.

Dr. Mandrola: What would your take-home message be after having done this trial design, the trial was conducted in your single center, and you come up with these amazing results? What would your message be to the whole community?

Dr. Sohns: Taking into consideration how severely sick these patients are, I can just repeat it: They are one step away from death, more or less, or from surgical intervention that can prolong their life. You should also consider that there are options like atrial fibrillation ablation that can buy time, postpone the natural course, or even in some patients replace the destination therapy. Therefore, in my opinion the next guidelines should recommend that every patient should carefully be checked for sinus rhythm before bringing these patients into the environment of transplantation.

Dr. Sommer: My interpretation is that we have to try to bring into physicians’ minds that besides a well-established and well-documented effect of drug therapy with the fabulous four, we may now have the fabulous five, including an ablation option for patients with atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. Dr. Sohns is deputy director of the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW, Ruhr University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. Dr. Sommer is professor of cardiology at the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW. Dr. Mandrola reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sohns reported receiving research funding from Else Kröner–Fresenius–Stiftung. Dr. Sommer reported consulting with Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic USA.


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

A few months ago I wrote a column in which I reluctantly supported designating obesity as a disease. My rationale was that in the more than 50 years that I have been watching the ebb and flow of medicine in this country I have seen very little, if any, evidence of success in our attempts to prevent obesity. Given this abysmal track record, the pragmatic side of my brain says why not label it a disease and begin to focus on treatment. However, I closed the column urging that we not lose sight of our core values and completely abandon any attempts at prevention.

As the months have rolled by, I have become increasingly concerned that preventing obesity is slipping further down the slippery slope to oblivion, greased by the success of semaglutide and the prospect of similar drugs in the pipeline. Before turning in our credentials as card-carrying preventionists, we need to step back and take another look at how we approach obesity from the pediatric side.

The majority of Americans believe that obesity occurs when an individual consumes more calories than he or she burns by being active. Some nutritionists criticize this “energy balance” model view as too simplistic and prefer a carbohydrate insulin model, which considers obesity as a metabolic disorder that is better managed by adjusting what the individual eats with less focus on amounts and the role of exercise. However, while the public may acknowledge that there are some individuals to whom genetics has dealt a more difficult hand, it continues to put a high priority on the dual roles of willpower and exercise. As effective obesity drugs become more available and remain safe, it is likely that willpower will no longer dominate the populous psyche.

But, what about children? At what point, if ever, does willpower enter the obesity discussion? A child may be able to exert some control over his or her diet by eating selectively. But, until the child acquires a certain level of resources and maturity it is parents who should be dictating the volume and variety of available food from which the child can choose. And, on the other side of the energy equation, parents should be playing a significant role in how much or how little physical activity their children engage in.

Of course there are many children whose genes predispose them to obesity when food is cheap and abundant. And, there are numerous families for whom socioeconomic factors limit their ability to control their children’s diet and activity options. However, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the majority of families may be making choices for their children that are contributing to the obesity problem in this country.

For example, a recent study published in Pediatrics has found that mean television viewing time during childhood and adolescence was associated with metabolic syndrome at age 45. Is this a failure on our part to anticipate this finding when for decades we as physicians have already seen anecdotal evidence to support it? Or is this another example of a willpower deficit by parents who likewise must have had an inkling that sitting on the couch watching television wasn’t healthy for their children?

Or is this just more evidence that as a nation we lack the political will to enact laws and develop programs aimed at heading off obesity in early childhood before it reaches the point that we have learned, from sad experience, is beyond the reach of dietary change, increased physical activity, and the fragility of normal human willpower. Here I’m talking about the disappearance of meaningful physical education in the schools, the failure to effectively prevent the marketing of poor nutritional foods and beverages to children, and the failure to aggressively promote universal breastfeeding-friendly workplaces and schedules, to name just a few.

As individuals we know all too well the limits of our own willpower. But, collectively as a nation we should be able to pool those fragmentary resources into a force for positive change. We may have thrown in the towel when we have opted to treat obesity as a disease in adults. Let’s find the will to work on prevention in early childhood when the window for change is still open.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A few months ago I wrote a column in which I reluctantly supported designating obesity as a disease. My rationale was that in the more than 50 years that I have been watching the ebb and flow of medicine in this country I have seen very little, if any, evidence of success in our attempts to prevent obesity. Given this abysmal track record, the pragmatic side of my brain says why not label it a disease and begin to focus on treatment. However, I closed the column urging that we not lose sight of our core values and completely abandon any attempts at prevention.

As the months have rolled by, I have become increasingly concerned that preventing obesity is slipping further down the slippery slope to oblivion, greased by the success of semaglutide and the prospect of similar drugs in the pipeline. Before turning in our credentials as card-carrying preventionists, we need to step back and take another look at how we approach obesity from the pediatric side.

The majority of Americans believe that obesity occurs when an individual consumes more calories than he or she burns by being active. Some nutritionists criticize this “energy balance” model view as too simplistic and prefer a carbohydrate insulin model, which considers obesity as a metabolic disorder that is better managed by adjusting what the individual eats with less focus on amounts and the role of exercise. However, while the public may acknowledge that there are some individuals to whom genetics has dealt a more difficult hand, it continues to put a high priority on the dual roles of willpower and exercise. As effective obesity drugs become more available and remain safe, it is likely that willpower will no longer dominate the populous psyche.

But, what about children? At what point, if ever, does willpower enter the obesity discussion? A child may be able to exert some control over his or her diet by eating selectively. But, until the child acquires a certain level of resources and maturity it is parents who should be dictating the volume and variety of available food from which the child can choose. And, on the other side of the energy equation, parents should be playing a significant role in how much or how little physical activity their children engage in.

Of course there are many children whose genes predispose them to obesity when food is cheap and abundant. And, there are numerous families for whom socioeconomic factors limit their ability to control their children’s diet and activity options. However, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the majority of families may be making choices for their children that are contributing to the obesity problem in this country.

For example, a recent study published in Pediatrics has found that mean television viewing time during childhood and adolescence was associated with metabolic syndrome at age 45. Is this a failure on our part to anticipate this finding when for decades we as physicians have already seen anecdotal evidence to support it? Or is this another example of a willpower deficit by parents who likewise must have had an inkling that sitting on the couch watching television wasn’t healthy for their children?

Or is this just more evidence that as a nation we lack the political will to enact laws and develop programs aimed at heading off obesity in early childhood before it reaches the point that we have learned, from sad experience, is beyond the reach of dietary change, increased physical activity, and the fragility of normal human willpower. Here I’m talking about the disappearance of meaningful physical education in the schools, the failure to effectively prevent the marketing of poor nutritional foods and beverages to children, and the failure to aggressively promote universal breastfeeding-friendly workplaces and schedules, to name just a few.

As individuals we know all too well the limits of our own willpower. But, collectively as a nation we should be able to pool those fragmentary resources into a force for positive change. We may have thrown in the towel when we have opted to treat obesity as a disease in adults. Let’s find the will to work on prevention in early childhood when the window for change is still open.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A few months ago I wrote a column in which I reluctantly supported designating obesity as a disease. My rationale was that in the more than 50 years that I have been watching the ebb and flow of medicine in this country I have seen very little, if any, evidence of success in our attempts to prevent obesity. Given this abysmal track record, the pragmatic side of my brain says why not label it a disease and begin to focus on treatment. However, I closed the column urging that we not lose sight of our core values and completely abandon any attempts at prevention.

As the months have rolled by, I have become increasingly concerned that preventing obesity is slipping further down the slippery slope to oblivion, greased by the success of semaglutide and the prospect of similar drugs in the pipeline. Before turning in our credentials as card-carrying preventionists, we need to step back and take another look at how we approach obesity from the pediatric side.

The majority of Americans believe that obesity occurs when an individual consumes more calories than he or she burns by being active. Some nutritionists criticize this “energy balance” model view as too simplistic and prefer a carbohydrate insulin model, which considers obesity as a metabolic disorder that is better managed by adjusting what the individual eats with less focus on amounts and the role of exercise. However, while the public may acknowledge that there are some individuals to whom genetics has dealt a more difficult hand, it continues to put a high priority on the dual roles of willpower and exercise. As effective obesity drugs become more available and remain safe, it is likely that willpower will no longer dominate the populous psyche.

But, what about children? At what point, if ever, does willpower enter the obesity discussion? A child may be able to exert some control over his or her diet by eating selectively. But, until the child acquires a certain level of resources and maturity it is parents who should be dictating the volume and variety of available food from which the child can choose. And, on the other side of the energy equation, parents should be playing a significant role in how much or how little physical activity their children engage in.

Of course there are many children whose genes predispose them to obesity when food is cheap and abundant. And, there are numerous families for whom socioeconomic factors limit their ability to control their children’s diet and activity options. However, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the majority of families may be making choices for their children that are contributing to the obesity problem in this country.

For example, a recent study published in Pediatrics has found that mean television viewing time during childhood and adolescence was associated with metabolic syndrome at age 45. Is this a failure on our part to anticipate this finding when for decades we as physicians have already seen anecdotal evidence to support it? Or is this another example of a willpower deficit by parents who likewise must have had an inkling that sitting on the couch watching television wasn’t healthy for their children?

Or is this just more evidence that as a nation we lack the political will to enact laws and develop programs aimed at heading off obesity in early childhood before it reaches the point that we have learned, from sad experience, is beyond the reach of dietary change, increased physical activity, and the fragility of normal human willpower. Here I’m talking about the disappearance of meaningful physical education in the schools, the failure to effectively prevent the marketing of poor nutritional foods and beverages to children, and the failure to aggressively promote universal breastfeeding-friendly workplaces and schedules, to name just a few.

As individuals we know all too well the limits of our own willpower. But, collectively as a nation we should be able to pool those fragmentary resources into a force for positive change. We may have thrown in the towel when we have opted to treat obesity as a disease in adults. Let’s find the will to work on prevention in early childhood when the window for change is still open.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is my usual blog, except I am here from the absolutely beautiful city of Amsterdam, where the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology has been going on.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors for HFpEF and HFrEF

I’m going to review very briefly the 2023 focused update to the ESC heart failure guidelines. Theresa McDonagh was the first author of this and of the previous ESC or European guidelines. These are a little bit different than the American guidelines, which were presented in 2022. We know that we need an update. The Europeans have gotten ahead of us, and now we have the European update, which I find incredibly well written and it really highlights the areas that I think the takeaways are for the clinicians.

First, we have been seeing now for several years – since 2018 – the benefits of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Every time we lift the veil on something, there they are in a positive light. We have learned about heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) for both empagliflozin and dapagliflozin. There are very similar results. One population may be enriched with a little of this and a little of that, but the basic messages are the same. In HFrEF, both of these drugs improve outcomes and it happens quickly. You don’t have to wait 1 or 2 years to see this. Within months, and actually within days, you start to see the curves split apart statistically.

The next logical ground was heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The definition, when we started the HFpEF trials, was 45% or greater. I want the audience to realize that, in the midst of all these trials, we came out – we meaning the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society – with the new definition of heart failure, which said that true HFpEF is 50% or greater. That in-between zone of 40%-50% or 41%-49% is mRF, or mid-range, what I call middle of the road. I think the Europeans have really emphasized that to us. I believe that those patients really behave much more like a HFrEF population.

Now that we have very positive findings with the SGLT2 inhibitors, both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in HFpEF – defined, as I said, as 40% or 45% or greater, not necessarily 50% – with excellent point estimates that just line up, one on top of the other. It doesn’t matter if patients have diabetes or not; the results are exactly the same.

This has been so promising that I am not surprised that the Europeans elevated the SGLT2 inhibitors to a class 1A indication. In the United States in 2022, we thought we were really way ahead by calling it a class 2A indication. Well, now it’s a class 1A indication in Europe, and I have a feeling that the AHA and the ACC are going to start talking about an update because the data are so strong.

Now, we even have data on initiating these drugs in the hospital. EMPULSE was a very large trial about the benefits of starting these drugs in the hospital. You do not have to wait until the patient is in the outpatient setting. You can start it in the hospital.

When? I have no specific day that I start it. I used to try to do a good diuresis first, get the patients somewhat decongested, and then start it. I don’t want to deprive the patients of the benefits of these drugs that happen very early by waiting until the patients are in the outpatient setting.

In the United States, we’ve had some issues with coverage of some of these drugs. In my institution, we now have both on the formulary, and I pick the drug depending upon the patient’s coverage. Medicare pretty much covers most of them. If the patient is older but not yet a Medicare patient, they may have a very large copay. I advise you to get your offices or your health system to look into this so that, when you give the prescription to the patient, whether they’re leaving the hospital or are now in your clinics, they can actually get the drug.
 

Finerenone and intravenous iron

There is an additional recommendation in these guidelines for finerenone, the mineralocorticoid receptor agonist that I’ve discussed before, that has some really promising data on type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease. They have called that a class 1A indication for finerenone. I think there is more to come.

One more: the iron deficiency. Giving intravenous iron actually does improve symptoms and quality of life. I have seen this in my own patients, so I have been very diligent at looking for iron deficiency.

It is a new era. We have more tools, obviously, for our patients. It means one more drug, and that’s always a challenge. We’ve already been doing the pillars of care. This is the fourth pillar of care, but now with a class 1A indication.

Take a look. They’re easy to read. Dr. McDonagh is the first author, and I think they’ve been extremely well done.

Dr. Piña is professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. She is a heart failure and cardiac transplantation expert. She disclosed serving as an adviser/consultant to the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health and has been a volunteer for the American Heart Association since 1982.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is my usual blog, except I am here from the absolutely beautiful city of Amsterdam, where the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology has been going on.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors for HFpEF and HFrEF

I’m going to review very briefly the 2023 focused update to the ESC heart failure guidelines. Theresa McDonagh was the first author of this and of the previous ESC or European guidelines. These are a little bit different than the American guidelines, which were presented in 2022. We know that we need an update. The Europeans have gotten ahead of us, and now we have the European update, which I find incredibly well written and it really highlights the areas that I think the takeaways are for the clinicians.

First, we have been seeing now for several years – since 2018 – the benefits of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Every time we lift the veil on something, there they are in a positive light. We have learned about heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) for both empagliflozin and dapagliflozin. There are very similar results. One population may be enriched with a little of this and a little of that, but the basic messages are the same. In HFrEF, both of these drugs improve outcomes and it happens quickly. You don’t have to wait 1 or 2 years to see this. Within months, and actually within days, you start to see the curves split apart statistically.

The next logical ground was heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The definition, when we started the HFpEF trials, was 45% or greater. I want the audience to realize that, in the midst of all these trials, we came out – we meaning the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society – with the new definition of heart failure, which said that true HFpEF is 50% or greater. That in-between zone of 40%-50% or 41%-49% is mRF, or mid-range, what I call middle of the road. I think the Europeans have really emphasized that to us. I believe that those patients really behave much more like a HFrEF population.

Now that we have very positive findings with the SGLT2 inhibitors, both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in HFpEF – defined, as I said, as 40% or 45% or greater, not necessarily 50% – with excellent point estimates that just line up, one on top of the other. It doesn’t matter if patients have diabetes or not; the results are exactly the same.

This has been so promising that I am not surprised that the Europeans elevated the SGLT2 inhibitors to a class 1A indication. In the United States in 2022, we thought we were really way ahead by calling it a class 2A indication. Well, now it’s a class 1A indication in Europe, and I have a feeling that the AHA and the ACC are going to start talking about an update because the data are so strong.

Now, we even have data on initiating these drugs in the hospital. EMPULSE was a very large trial about the benefits of starting these drugs in the hospital. You do not have to wait until the patient is in the outpatient setting. You can start it in the hospital.

When? I have no specific day that I start it. I used to try to do a good diuresis first, get the patients somewhat decongested, and then start it. I don’t want to deprive the patients of the benefits of these drugs that happen very early by waiting until the patients are in the outpatient setting.

In the United States, we’ve had some issues with coverage of some of these drugs. In my institution, we now have both on the formulary, and I pick the drug depending upon the patient’s coverage. Medicare pretty much covers most of them. If the patient is older but not yet a Medicare patient, they may have a very large copay. I advise you to get your offices or your health system to look into this so that, when you give the prescription to the patient, whether they’re leaving the hospital or are now in your clinics, they can actually get the drug.
 

Finerenone and intravenous iron

There is an additional recommendation in these guidelines for finerenone, the mineralocorticoid receptor agonist that I’ve discussed before, that has some really promising data on type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease. They have called that a class 1A indication for finerenone. I think there is more to come.

One more: the iron deficiency. Giving intravenous iron actually does improve symptoms and quality of life. I have seen this in my own patients, so I have been very diligent at looking for iron deficiency.

It is a new era. We have more tools, obviously, for our patients. It means one more drug, and that’s always a challenge. We’ve already been doing the pillars of care. This is the fourth pillar of care, but now with a class 1A indication.

Take a look. They’re easy to read. Dr. McDonagh is the first author, and I think they’ve been extremely well done.

Dr. Piña is professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. She is a heart failure and cardiac transplantation expert. She disclosed serving as an adviser/consultant to the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health and has been a volunteer for the American Heart Association since 1982.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is my usual blog, except I am here from the absolutely beautiful city of Amsterdam, where the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology has been going on.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors for HFpEF and HFrEF

I’m going to review very briefly the 2023 focused update to the ESC heart failure guidelines. Theresa McDonagh was the first author of this and of the previous ESC or European guidelines. These are a little bit different than the American guidelines, which were presented in 2022. We know that we need an update. The Europeans have gotten ahead of us, and now we have the European update, which I find incredibly well written and it really highlights the areas that I think the takeaways are for the clinicians.

First, we have been seeing now for several years – since 2018 – the benefits of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Every time we lift the veil on something, there they are in a positive light. We have learned about heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) for both empagliflozin and dapagliflozin. There are very similar results. One population may be enriched with a little of this and a little of that, but the basic messages are the same. In HFrEF, both of these drugs improve outcomes and it happens quickly. You don’t have to wait 1 or 2 years to see this. Within months, and actually within days, you start to see the curves split apart statistically.

The next logical ground was heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The definition, when we started the HFpEF trials, was 45% or greater. I want the audience to realize that, in the midst of all these trials, we came out – we meaning the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society – with the new definition of heart failure, which said that true HFpEF is 50% or greater. That in-between zone of 40%-50% or 41%-49% is mRF, or mid-range, what I call middle of the road. I think the Europeans have really emphasized that to us. I believe that those patients really behave much more like a HFrEF population.

Now that we have very positive findings with the SGLT2 inhibitors, both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in HFpEF – defined, as I said, as 40% or 45% or greater, not necessarily 50% – with excellent point estimates that just line up, one on top of the other. It doesn’t matter if patients have diabetes or not; the results are exactly the same.

This has been so promising that I am not surprised that the Europeans elevated the SGLT2 inhibitors to a class 1A indication. In the United States in 2022, we thought we were really way ahead by calling it a class 2A indication. Well, now it’s a class 1A indication in Europe, and I have a feeling that the AHA and the ACC are going to start talking about an update because the data are so strong.

Now, we even have data on initiating these drugs in the hospital. EMPULSE was a very large trial about the benefits of starting these drugs in the hospital. You do not have to wait until the patient is in the outpatient setting. You can start it in the hospital.

When? I have no specific day that I start it. I used to try to do a good diuresis first, get the patients somewhat decongested, and then start it. I don’t want to deprive the patients of the benefits of these drugs that happen very early by waiting until the patients are in the outpatient setting.

In the United States, we’ve had some issues with coverage of some of these drugs. In my institution, we now have both on the formulary, and I pick the drug depending upon the patient’s coverage. Medicare pretty much covers most of them. If the patient is older but not yet a Medicare patient, they may have a very large copay. I advise you to get your offices or your health system to look into this so that, when you give the prescription to the patient, whether they’re leaving the hospital or are now in your clinics, they can actually get the drug.
 

Finerenone and intravenous iron

There is an additional recommendation in these guidelines for finerenone, the mineralocorticoid receptor agonist that I’ve discussed before, that has some really promising data on type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease. They have called that a class 1A indication for finerenone. I think there is more to come.

One more: the iron deficiency. Giving intravenous iron actually does improve symptoms and quality of life. I have seen this in my own patients, so I have been very diligent at looking for iron deficiency.

It is a new era. We have more tools, obviously, for our patients. It means one more drug, and that’s always a challenge. We’ve already been doing the pillars of care. This is the fourth pillar of care, but now with a class 1A indication.

Take a look. They’re easy to read. Dr. McDonagh is the first author, and I think they’ve been extremely well done.

Dr. Piña is professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. She is a heart failure and cardiac transplantation expert. She disclosed serving as an adviser/consultant to the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health and has been a volunteer for the American Heart Association since 1982.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – New European Society of Cardiology guidelines on the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have for the first time combined ST-elevation MI (STEMI), non–ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina into the same set of recommendations.

The new guideline was released at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and was published online in the European Heart Journal.

“We found that it was realized by the cardiology community that patients with STEMI, NSTEMI, or unstable angina represent a spectrum,” the chair of the guideline task force, Robert Byrne, MD, chair of cardiovascular research at the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, explained to this news organization. “After the initial triage and management decisions, then most of the rest of the care follows a common pathway so it would make sense to consider everything in one guideline.”

Dr. Byrne noted that for all patients with a suspected ACS, the guideline recommendation is to administer an ECG within 10 minutes of presentation. The time is critical particularly for those with an occluded epicardial vessel. If there are features on the ECG that suggest an acutely occluded epicardial vessel, then the patient needs immediate angiography or primary angioplasty.

“The 10-minute guidance has been maintained from previous guidelines, but the nuance in the new guideline is that typically when we think of an occluded epicardial vessel we think of ST-elevation on the ECG,” Byrne said. “While this captures most occluded epicardial vessels, it doesn’t capture all of them. So, we have provided some guidance on alternative ECG patterns which might be indicative of an acute occlusion of the epicardial vessel and should be dealt with in the same way as an ST-elevation MI. This is a new concept.”

This situation could arise when a patient has an occluded circumflex artery and the regular ECG may not show ST elevation but the patient has ongoing pain, he noted. “There are additional ECG leads that can be looked at that might identify patients who need an immediate invasive strategy.

“This is one more reason why all ACS patients should be considered as part of one spectrum, and while the ECG gives us important information, it is not the only thing to consider. Dividing the conditions up as to whether a patient has ST elevation or not does not always make pathophysiological sense,” he added.

Dr. Byrne noted that the new guidelines have tried to reach a wider stakeholder group that includes emergency doctors, internal medicine physicians, general practitioners, and surgeons, as well as cardiologists. The document includes animations in an effort to increase the reach of the guidelines to noncardiology stakeholders, and for the first time, the task force included a patient representative.

“As part of this strategy, we have put more structure in to emphasize the importance that at first contact, we already want to be thinking of antithrombotic therapy and whether the patient needs urgent transfer to the nearest cath lab. We also want to be thinking straight away about preventing the next heart attack by implementing strong secondary prevention measures,” he commented.

Dr. Byrne highlighted a few changes to individual recommendations in the new guidelines.
 

Invasive management in NSTE-ACS

He pointed out that a small change has been made in the advice on invasive management for patients with non–ST-elevation ACS.

Dr. Byrne explained that patients with ST elevation should be sent immediately to a cath lab for PCI. If this is not possible within 120 minutes, then the patient should receive thrombolysis. This recommendation is the same as in previous guidelines.

He added, however, that there is some novelty in recommendations for patients who don’t have ST elevation but do have a positive troponin. For this group, previous guidelines gave a Class I recommendation that all such patients undergo an angiogram within the first 24 hours. However, an additional meta-analysis that was published in 2022 showed that the evidence for triaging all patients to the cath lab within 24 hours is somewhat limited, Dr. Byrne noted.

“At the end of the day, the task force felt that a Class I recommendation to get all patients to the cath lab within 24 hours was too strong and couldn’t be sustained, so it has been downgraded to a Class IIa recommendation, which we thought was more appropriate,” he said.

“So, while all patients should still have an angiogram during the hospital admission, if they are high-risk ACS, the imperative to get everyone to the cath lab within 24 hours – which many of our colleagues were finding difficult to achieve – does not seem to be backed up by the evidence,” he added.
 

Antithrombotic therapy

Addressing administration of antithrombotics, the guidelines emphasize that at the time of initial diagnosis, all patients should receive antithrombotic therapy, usually aspirin and a parenteral antithrombotic, such as heparin, enoxaparin, bivalirudin, or fondaparinux. Dr. Byrne noted that the guidelines have a new algorithm as to which of these antithrombotics to give, depending on the clinical presentation of the patient.

On the use of upfront P2Y12 inhibitors, Dr. Byrne said the new guidelines only give a weak recommendation for this.

“Giving a P2Y12 inhibitor up front does not have a strong evidence base, and it’s not unreasonable to wait, do the angiogram, see where you are, and then start the P2Y12 inhibitor. This is something that’s not widely done in clinical practice,” he commented.

“The last 2020 guideline gave a Class III recommendation for upfront P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for ACS patients who do not have STEMI. We’ve generally maintained that with the introduction of the exception that if you are in a health care system where there is a long wait to get to the cath lab – 5 ,6 or 7 days – then it’s reasonable to make an exception and give a P2Y12 inhibitor, but otherwise we’ve sustained the Class III recommendation,” he noted.

Also, for patients who have STEMI, there is a new Class IIb recommendation that upfront P2Y12 inhibitors may be considered.

“This is also rather a weak recommendation. There isn’t a strong rationale to give a P2Y12 inhibitor it in ST elevation either. It’s also reasonable to wait,” he added.
 

Don’t rush cardiac arrest patients to the cath lab

Another update in the guidelines involves the management of patients with cardiac arrest who have been resuscitated. Dr. Byrne explained that these patients would all receive an immediate ECG, and if it is found that they have ST elevation, they would be sent immediately to the cath lab. But a series of randomized trials has suggested that for patients who don’t have ST elevation, it is not necessary to rush these patients to the cath lab.

“We’ve given a Class III recommendation for this, saying it may be better to stabilize the patients first in the ICU. This is in recognition that a large proportion of these patients turn out not to have an MI. They have had a cardiac arrest for another reason,” Dr. Byrne noted. “Moving them to the cath lab when they are still unstable could be harming these patients rather than helping them.”
 

Revascularization for multivessel disease

Dr. Byrne notes that revascularization remains a critical element in the care for patients with STEMI, and there is a new recommendation in this area for patients with multivessel disease.

“Up to half of patients presenting with STEMI have multivessel disease, and we now have five randomized trials to say that these patients should have complete revascularization rather than just the culprit vessel. There is a new Class I recommendation for this,” he said.

However, the optimal timing of revascularization (immediate vs. staged) has still not been investigated in adequately sized randomized trials, and no recommendation has been made on this, the task force notes.

Dr. Byrne commented: “If you want to do everything in one go, that’s fine, but it’s also okay to do the culprit lesion first and then the other vessels at a later date within 45 days. This might depend on individual circumstances. For example, if there are complex lesions or the vessels are heavily calcified, then it may be best to get the culprit lesion fixed first and let the patient recover, then bring them back in for the rest.”

He pointed out that the results of the MULTISTARS trial, which were not available when the task force was formulating the guidelines, were reported at the ESC Congress and confirmed their recommendation.
 

DAPT after PCI

On the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after PCI, the new guidelines have largely retained prior recommendations for a default strategy of 12 months for the combination of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor.

“This was the subject of some discussion, as there have been several trials now looking at shorter durations of DAPT and deescalating after a few months to just one of these treatments. And while there is a rationale to do this, we think it’s best to be kept as an alternative strategy rather than the default strategy,” Dr. Byrne said.

He explained that the trials of DAPT deescalation tended to enroll lower-risk patients, which reduced the generalizability of the results.

Most of the trials only randomly assigned patients to shorter durations of DAPT when they were event-free for some period, she said.

“This is a dynamic decision-making process and reflects the real world to some extent. We think it is best to recommend the standard aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor for the 12-month duration, but at 3 months, if the patient is doing well but you may be worried about bleeding risk, then you could decide to deescalate to single antiplatelet therapy,” she noted. “So, there is Class IIa recommendation that this can be considered, but it is not recommended as the default position.”
 

Polypill for secondary prevention

Another innovation in the new guidelines is a new Class IIa recommendation for prescription of a polypill containing secondary prevention medications for patients on discharge from hospital.

This recommendation follows a trial that showed that the use of such a polypill helps patients be more adherent to the therapies prescribed.

Byrne explains that such a polypill may contain aspirin, an ACE inhibitor, and a statin. Several varieties are available in most European countries, but they are not widely used.

On secondary prevention, he stressed, “Prevention of the next heart attack starts before the patient leaves hospital. It is important to make sure the patient has the right medication on board, including a high-dose, high-intensity statin, and has been referred to a cardiac rehabilitation program. These are largely maintained recommendations from previous guidelines, but they are very important.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – New European Society of Cardiology guidelines on the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have for the first time combined ST-elevation MI (STEMI), non–ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina into the same set of recommendations.

The new guideline was released at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and was published online in the European Heart Journal.

“We found that it was realized by the cardiology community that patients with STEMI, NSTEMI, or unstable angina represent a spectrum,” the chair of the guideline task force, Robert Byrne, MD, chair of cardiovascular research at the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, explained to this news organization. “After the initial triage and management decisions, then most of the rest of the care follows a common pathway so it would make sense to consider everything in one guideline.”

Dr. Byrne noted that for all patients with a suspected ACS, the guideline recommendation is to administer an ECG within 10 minutes of presentation. The time is critical particularly for those with an occluded epicardial vessel. If there are features on the ECG that suggest an acutely occluded epicardial vessel, then the patient needs immediate angiography or primary angioplasty.

“The 10-minute guidance has been maintained from previous guidelines, but the nuance in the new guideline is that typically when we think of an occluded epicardial vessel we think of ST-elevation on the ECG,” Byrne said. “While this captures most occluded epicardial vessels, it doesn’t capture all of them. So, we have provided some guidance on alternative ECG patterns which might be indicative of an acute occlusion of the epicardial vessel and should be dealt with in the same way as an ST-elevation MI. This is a new concept.”

This situation could arise when a patient has an occluded circumflex artery and the regular ECG may not show ST elevation but the patient has ongoing pain, he noted. “There are additional ECG leads that can be looked at that might identify patients who need an immediate invasive strategy.

“This is one more reason why all ACS patients should be considered as part of one spectrum, and while the ECG gives us important information, it is not the only thing to consider. Dividing the conditions up as to whether a patient has ST elevation or not does not always make pathophysiological sense,” he added.

Dr. Byrne noted that the new guidelines have tried to reach a wider stakeholder group that includes emergency doctors, internal medicine physicians, general practitioners, and surgeons, as well as cardiologists. The document includes animations in an effort to increase the reach of the guidelines to noncardiology stakeholders, and for the first time, the task force included a patient representative.

“As part of this strategy, we have put more structure in to emphasize the importance that at first contact, we already want to be thinking of antithrombotic therapy and whether the patient needs urgent transfer to the nearest cath lab. We also want to be thinking straight away about preventing the next heart attack by implementing strong secondary prevention measures,” he commented.

Dr. Byrne highlighted a few changes to individual recommendations in the new guidelines.
 

Invasive management in NSTE-ACS

He pointed out that a small change has been made in the advice on invasive management for patients with non–ST-elevation ACS.

Dr. Byrne explained that patients with ST elevation should be sent immediately to a cath lab for PCI. If this is not possible within 120 minutes, then the patient should receive thrombolysis. This recommendation is the same as in previous guidelines.

He added, however, that there is some novelty in recommendations for patients who don’t have ST elevation but do have a positive troponin. For this group, previous guidelines gave a Class I recommendation that all such patients undergo an angiogram within the first 24 hours. However, an additional meta-analysis that was published in 2022 showed that the evidence for triaging all patients to the cath lab within 24 hours is somewhat limited, Dr. Byrne noted.

“At the end of the day, the task force felt that a Class I recommendation to get all patients to the cath lab within 24 hours was too strong and couldn’t be sustained, so it has been downgraded to a Class IIa recommendation, which we thought was more appropriate,” he said.

“So, while all patients should still have an angiogram during the hospital admission, if they are high-risk ACS, the imperative to get everyone to the cath lab within 24 hours – which many of our colleagues were finding difficult to achieve – does not seem to be backed up by the evidence,” he added.
 

Antithrombotic therapy

Addressing administration of antithrombotics, the guidelines emphasize that at the time of initial diagnosis, all patients should receive antithrombotic therapy, usually aspirin and a parenteral antithrombotic, such as heparin, enoxaparin, bivalirudin, or fondaparinux. Dr. Byrne noted that the guidelines have a new algorithm as to which of these antithrombotics to give, depending on the clinical presentation of the patient.

On the use of upfront P2Y12 inhibitors, Dr. Byrne said the new guidelines only give a weak recommendation for this.

“Giving a P2Y12 inhibitor up front does not have a strong evidence base, and it’s not unreasonable to wait, do the angiogram, see where you are, and then start the P2Y12 inhibitor. This is something that’s not widely done in clinical practice,” he commented.

“The last 2020 guideline gave a Class III recommendation for upfront P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for ACS patients who do not have STEMI. We’ve generally maintained that with the introduction of the exception that if you are in a health care system where there is a long wait to get to the cath lab – 5 ,6 or 7 days – then it’s reasonable to make an exception and give a P2Y12 inhibitor, but otherwise we’ve sustained the Class III recommendation,” he noted.

Also, for patients who have STEMI, there is a new Class IIb recommendation that upfront P2Y12 inhibitors may be considered.

“This is also rather a weak recommendation. There isn’t a strong rationale to give a P2Y12 inhibitor it in ST elevation either. It’s also reasonable to wait,” he added.
 

Don’t rush cardiac arrest patients to the cath lab

Another update in the guidelines involves the management of patients with cardiac arrest who have been resuscitated. Dr. Byrne explained that these patients would all receive an immediate ECG, and if it is found that they have ST elevation, they would be sent immediately to the cath lab. But a series of randomized trials has suggested that for patients who don’t have ST elevation, it is not necessary to rush these patients to the cath lab.

“We’ve given a Class III recommendation for this, saying it may be better to stabilize the patients first in the ICU. This is in recognition that a large proportion of these patients turn out not to have an MI. They have had a cardiac arrest for another reason,” Dr. Byrne noted. “Moving them to the cath lab when they are still unstable could be harming these patients rather than helping them.”
 

Revascularization for multivessel disease

Dr. Byrne notes that revascularization remains a critical element in the care for patients with STEMI, and there is a new recommendation in this area for patients with multivessel disease.

“Up to half of patients presenting with STEMI have multivessel disease, and we now have five randomized trials to say that these patients should have complete revascularization rather than just the culprit vessel. There is a new Class I recommendation for this,” he said.

However, the optimal timing of revascularization (immediate vs. staged) has still not been investigated in adequately sized randomized trials, and no recommendation has been made on this, the task force notes.

Dr. Byrne commented: “If you want to do everything in one go, that’s fine, but it’s also okay to do the culprit lesion first and then the other vessels at a later date within 45 days. This might depend on individual circumstances. For example, if there are complex lesions or the vessels are heavily calcified, then it may be best to get the culprit lesion fixed first and let the patient recover, then bring them back in for the rest.”

He pointed out that the results of the MULTISTARS trial, which were not available when the task force was formulating the guidelines, were reported at the ESC Congress and confirmed their recommendation.
 

DAPT after PCI

On the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after PCI, the new guidelines have largely retained prior recommendations for a default strategy of 12 months for the combination of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor.

“This was the subject of some discussion, as there have been several trials now looking at shorter durations of DAPT and deescalating after a few months to just one of these treatments. And while there is a rationale to do this, we think it’s best to be kept as an alternative strategy rather than the default strategy,” Dr. Byrne said.

He explained that the trials of DAPT deescalation tended to enroll lower-risk patients, which reduced the generalizability of the results.

Most of the trials only randomly assigned patients to shorter durations of DAPT when they were event-free for some period, she said.

“This is a dynamic decision-making process and reflects the real world to some extent. We think it is best to recommend the standard aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor for the 12-month duration, but at 3 months, if the patient is doing well but you may be worried about bleeding risk, then you could decide to deescalate to single antiplatelet therapy,” she noted. “So, there is Class IIa recommendation that this can be considered, but it is not recommended as the default position.”
 

Polypill for secondary prevention

Another innovation in the new guidelines is a new Class IIa recommendation for prescription of a polypill containing secondary prevention medications for patients on discharge from hospital.

This recommendation follows a trial that showed that the use of such a polypill helps patients be more adherent to the therapies prescribed.

Byrne explains that such a polypill may contain aspirin, an ACE inhibitor, and a statin. Several varieties are available in most European countries, but they are not widely used.

On secondary prevention, he stressed, “Prevention of the next heart attack starts before the patient leaves hospital. It is important to make sure the patient has the right medication on board, including a high-dose, high-intensity statin, and has been referred to a cardiac rehabilitation program. These are largely maintained recommendations from previous guidelines, but they are very important.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – New European Society of Cardiology guidelines on the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have for the first time combined ST-elevation MI (STEMI), non–ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina into the same set of recommendations.

The new guideline was released at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and was published online in the European Heart Journal.

“We found that it was realized by the cardiology community that patients with STEMI, NSTEMI, or unstable angina represent a spectrum,” the chair of the guideline task force, Robert Byrne, MD, chair of cardiovascular research at the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, explained to this news organization. “After the initial triage and management decisions, then most of the rest of the care follows a common pathway so it would make sense to consider everything in one guideline.”

Dr. Byrne noted that for all patients with a suspected ACS, the guideline recommendation is to administer an ECG within 10 minutes of presentation. The time is critical particularly for those with an occluded epicardial vessel. If there are features on the ECG that suggest an acutely occluded epicardial vessel, then the patient needs immediate angiography or primary angioplasty.

“The 10-minute guidance has been maintained from previous guidelines, but the nuance in the new guideline is that typically when we think of an occluded epicardial vessel we think of ST-elevation on the ECG,” Byrne said. “While this captures most occluded epicardial vessels, it doesn’t capture all of them. So, we have provided some guidance on alternative ECG patterns which might be indicative of an acute occlusion of the epicardial vessel and should be dealt with in the same way as an ST-elevation MI. This is a new concept.”

This situation could arise when a patient has an occluded circumflex artery and the regular ECG may not show ST elevation but the patient has ongoing pain, he noted. “There are additional ECG leads that can be looked at that might identify patients who need an immediate invasive strategy.

“This is one more reason why all ACS patients should be considered as part of one spectrum, and while the ECG gives us important information, it is not the only thing to consider. Dividing the conditions up as to whether a patient has ST elevation or not does not always make pathophysiological sense,” he added.

Dr. Byrne noted that the new guidelines have tried to reach a wider stakeholder group that includes emergency doctors, internal medicine physicians, general practitioners, and surgeons, as well as cardiologists. The document includes animations in an effort to increase the reach of the guidelines to noncardiology stakeholders, and for the first time, the task force included a patient representative.

“As part of this strategy, we have put more structure in to emphasize the importance that at first contact, we already want to be thinking of antithrombotic therapy and whether the patient needs urgent transfer to the nearest cath lab. We also want to be thinking straight away about preventing the next heart attack by implementing strong secondary prevention measures,” he commented.

Dr. Byrne highlighted a few changes to individual recommendations in the new guidelines.
 

Invasive management in NSTE-ACS

He pointed out that a small change has been made in the advice on invasive management for patients with non–ST-elevation ACS.

Dr. Byrne explained that patients with ST elevation should be sent immediately to a cath lab for PCI. If this is not possible within 120 minutes, then the patient should receive thrombolysis. This recommendation is the same as in previous guidelines.

He added, however, that there is some novelty in recommendations for patients who don’t have ST elevation but do have a positive troponin. For this group, previous guidelines gave a Class I recommendation that all such patients undergo an angiogram within the first 24 hours. However, an additional meta-analysis that was published in 2022 showed that the evidence for triaging all patients to the cath lab within 24 hours is somewhat limited, Dr. Byrne noted.

“At the end of the day, the task force felt that a Class I recommendation to get all patients to the cath lab within 24 hours was too strong and couldn’t be sustained, so it has been downgraded to a Class IIa recommendation, which we thought was more appropriate,” he said.

“So, while all patients should still have an angiogram during the hospital admission, if they are high-risk ACS, the imperative to get everyone to the cath lab within 24 hours – which many of our colleagues were finding difficult to achieve – does not seem to be backed up by the evidence,” he added.
 

Antithrombotic therapy

Addressing administration of antithrombotics, the guidelines emphasize that at the time of initial diagnosis, all patients should receive antithrombotic therapy, usually aspirin and a parenteral antithrombotic, such as heparin, enoxaparin, bivalirudin, or fondaparinux. Dr. Byrne noted that the guidelines have a new algorithm as to which of these antithrombotics to give, depending on the clinical presentation of the patient.

On the use of upfront P2Y12 inhibitors, Dr. Byrne said the new guidelines only give a weak recommendation for this.

“Giving a P2Y12 inhibitor up front does not have a strong evidence base, and it’s not unreasonable to wait, do the angiogram, see where you are, and then start the P2Y12 inhibitor. This is something that’s not widely done in clinical practice,” he commented.

“The last 2020 guideline gave a Class III recommendation for upfront P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for ACS patients who do not have STEMI. We’ve generally maintained that with the introduction of the exception that if you are in a health care system where there is a long wait to get to the cath lab – 5 ,6 or 7 days – then it’s reasonable to make an exception and give a P2Y12 inhibitor, but otherwise we’ve sustained the Class III recommendation,” he noted.

Also, for patients who have STEMI, there is a new Class IIb recommendation that upfront P2Y12 inhibitors may be considered.

“This is also rather a weak recommendation. There isn’t a strong rationale to give a P2Y12 inhibitor it in ST elevation either. It’s also reasonable to wait,” he added.
 

Don’t rush cardiac arrest patients to the cath lab

Another update in the guidelines involves the management of patients with cardiac arrest who have been resuscitated. Dr. Byrne explained that these patients would all receive an immediate ECG, and if it is found that they have ST elevation, they would be sent immediately to the cath lab. But a series of randomized trials has suggested that for patients who don’t have ST elevation, it is not necessary to rush these patients to the cath lab.

“We’ve given a Class III recommendation for this, saying it may be better to stabilize the patients first in the ICU. This is in recognition that a large proportion of these patients turn out not to have an MI. They have had a cardiac arrest for another reason,” Dr. Byrne noted. “Moving them to the cath lab when they are still unstable could be harming these patients rather than helping them.”
 

Revascularization for multivessel disease

Dr. Byrne notes that revascularization remains a critical element in the care for patients with STEMI, and there is a new recommendation in this area for patients with multivessel disease.

“Up to half of patients presenting with STEMI have multivessel disease, and we now have five randomized trials to say that these patients should have complete revascularization rather than just the culprit vessel. There is a new Class I recommendation for this,” he said.

However, the optimal timing of revascularization (immediate vs. staged) has still not been investigated in adequately sized randomized trials, and no recommendation has been made on this, the task force notes.

Dr. Byrne commented: “If you want to do everything in one go, that’s fine, but it’s also okay to do the culprit lesion first and then the other vessels at a later date within 45 days. This might depend on individual circumstances. For example, if there are complex lesions or the vessels are heavily calcified, then it may be best to get the culprit lesion fixed first and let the patient recover, then bring them back in for the rest.”

He pointed out that the results of the MULTISTARS trial, which were not available when the task force was formulating the guidelines, were reported at the ESC Congress and confirmed their recommendation.
 

DAPT after PCI

On the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after PCI, the new guidelines have largely retained prior recommendations for a default strategy of 12 months for the combination of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor.

“This was the subject of some discussion, as there have been several trials now looking at shorter durations of DAPT and deescalating after a few months to just one of these treatments. And while there is a rationale to do this, we think it’s best to be kept as an alternative strategy rather than the default strategy,” Dr. Byrne said.

He explained that the trials of DAPT deescalation tended to enroll lower-risk patients, which reduced the generalizability of the results.

Most of the trials only randomly assigned patients to shorter durations of DAPT when they were event-free for some period, she said.

“This is a dynamic decision-making process and reflects the real world to some extent. We think it is best to recommend the standard aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor for the 12-month duration, but at 3 months, if the patient is doing well but you may be worried about bleeding risk, then you could decide to deescalate to single antiplatelet therapy,” she noted. “So, there is Class IIa recommendation that this can be considered, but it is not recommended as the default position.”
 

Polypill for secondary prevention

Another innovation in the new guidelines is a new Class IIa recommendation for prescription of a polypill containing secondary prevention medications for patients on discharge from hospital.

This recommendation follows a trial that showed that the use of such a polypill helps patients be more adherent to the therapies prescribed.

Byrne explains that such a polypill may contain aspirin, an ACE inhibitor, and a statin. Several varieties are available in most European countries, but they are not widely used.

On secondary prevention, he stressed, “Prevention of the next heart attack starts before the patient leaves hospital. It is important to make sure the patient has the right medication on board, including a high-dose, high-intensity statin, and has been referred to a cardiac rehabilitation program. These are largely maintained recommendations from previous guidelines, but they are very important.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

THE CASE

A 24-year-old woman with a history of type 1 diabetes, seizure disorder, and migraines presented to a rural Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) with progressive and severe symmetric large joint arthralgias of several weeks’ duration. The patient’s existing medications included etonogestrel 68 mg subdermal implant, levetiracetam 1500 mg bid, insulin glargine 26 units subcutaneously nightly, and insulin lispro 20 units subcutaneously tid (before meals).

An examination revealed symmetrically edematous elbows, wrists, and fingers. Subsequent serologic analyses and a telemedicine consultation with a rheumatologist confirmed a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The patient’s lab work was positive for antinuclear antibody titers (1:40), rheumatoid factor (513 IU/mL), and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (248 units/mL). Treatment was started with prednisone 60 mg PO daily, methotrexate 20 mg PO weekly, and hydroxychloroquine 400 mg PO daily. (The benefits of prednisone in treating this patient’s severe arthralgias outweighed concerns over its use in a patient with diabetes.)

After 2 months of receiving RA therapy, the patient underwent further work-up to assess its effectiveness. Liver function testing was performed, and she tested positive for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies. Viral polymerase chain reaction confirmed active HCV infection. Lab work revealed a viral load of 15,000,000 IU/mL; transaminase, 173 U/L (normal range, 4-36 U/L); and aspartate aminotransferase, 246 U/L (normal range, 8-33 U/L). A liver sonogram demonstrated no findings of cirrhosis or fibrosis.

Upon receiving a diagnosis of active hepatitis C, the patient acknowledged that she’d had unprotected heterosexual intercourse and shared used insulin syringes with friends.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Consideration was given to a diagnosis of HCV arthropathy, which can present as an RA-like arthritis in HCV-infected individuals, in the differential diagnosis.¹ A cohort study found HCV-associated arthropathy occurred in 6.8% of those with chronic HCV infection.²

However, the symmetrical involvement of shoulders and knees as the patient’s primary arthralgias, and a rheumatologic work-up showing the presence of anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibody levels, confirmed the diagnosis of RA with coexisting HCV.

DISCUSSION

Delivering interdisciplinary care in a rural area

Although evidence-based guidelines and online HCV Treatment Path programs guided the initial evaluation of potential treatments for this patient, her multiple comorbidities prompted us to seek out additional, interdisciplinary advice through a resource for underserved communities called Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO; see “What is Project ECHO?^3,4”). The patient’s case was presented virtually, without identifying information, to a multidisciplinary HCV team. Two treatment options were suggested:

• sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (400 mg/100 mg) for 12 weeks or
• glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (100 mg/40 mg) for 8 weeks.

Both are evidence-based and recommended treatment options according to the HCV treatment guidelines issued jointly by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.⁵

In most patients with HCV, treatment is guided by a number of factors, including pill burden, access to care, duration of therapy, drug interactions, and patient-specific needs. After analyzing all aspects of this patient’s case, 2 major concerns guided our shared decision-making process on treatment.

The best treatment is what works for the patient

Owing to the patient’s multiple comorbidities and prescribed medications for chronic diseases, concerns about possible medication interactions with the HCV treatment options were a factor in her HCV treatment plan. Additionally, the patient had significant social determinants of health barriers that made continued treatment and follow-up challenging.

The potential interaction of HCV infection treatment with the patient’s current methotrexate therapy for her RA was a primary concern. To determine the risk for interactions, the team used the University of Liverpool HEP/HIV Drug Interactions Checker, which helps identify possible interactions with these disease-specific medication therapies.⁶

Both sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/­pibrentasvir have a potential interaction with methotrexate and are driven by a similar mechanism. Methotrexate is a substrate of the Breast Cancer Resistance Protein efflux transporter (BCRP), and the components of both sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir are inhibitors of BCRP.⁷ The inhibition of this efflux transporter can lead to an increased concentration of methotrexate, increasing the risk for methotrexate toxicity.⁷

Since no quantitative data exist regarding the degree of inhibition that these HCV drugs exert on BCRP, the team considered ­sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/­pibrentasvir to have equal risk with regard to potential for drug interactions.

The patient’s barriers to treatment were another area of concern that directed our therapy decision. The patient had multiple barriers, including poor access to health care because of transportation issues, multiple children requiring care, a variety of chronic diseases, and other life stressors. Shared decision­-making ensured our patient’s autonomy in choosing a specific treatment.

This case shines a light on the multiple challenges that could have come between our patient and proper treatment—but ultimately, did not.

The patient’s social situation and preference narrowed the team’s basis for medication choice primarily down to the duration of therapy: 8 weeks of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir vs 12 weeks of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir. The patient mentioned multiple transportation challenges for follow-up visits to the clinic and therefore wanted to utilize the shorter treatment duration. Follow-up is needed every 4 weeks, so the patient was able to go from 3 to 2 visits.

For problems, there are solutions. Following careful consideration of these patient-specific factors and preferences, the team decided to begin therapy with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir. The patient worked with an outreach specialist at the FQHC to coordinate care and complete paperwork for the Project ECHO consultation. The outreach specialist also assisted the patient in completing paperwork for the Patient Assistance Program for HCV treatment. Because the patient is being cared for at an FQHC, the clinic’s in-house pharmacy was able to utilize the 340B Federal Drug Pricing Program, which makes otherwise out-of-reach medicines affordable for patients such as ours.

Our patient has had no issues with treatment adherence, adverse effects, or follow­-up appointments. The patient’s RA symptoms have improved significantly without any discernable worsening of her HCV infection.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case shines a light on the multiple challenges (clinical, geographic, and financial) that could have come between our patient and proper treatment—but ultimately, did not. The Project ECHO model of care remains a viable way to provide patients who live in rural and underserved communities and who have active HCV and other underlying chronic conditions with interdisciplinary care that can improve health outcomes.

THE CASE

A 24-year-old woman with a history of type 1 diabetes, seizure disorder, and migraines presented to a rural Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) with progressive and severe symmetric large joint arthralgias of several weeks’ duration. The patient’s existing medications included etonogestrel 68 mg subdermal implant, levetiracetam 1500 mg bid, insulin glargine 26 units subcutaneously nightly, and insulin lispro 20 units subcutaneously tid (before meals).

An examination revealed symmetrically edematous elbows, wrists, and fingers. Subsequent serologic analyses and a telemedicine consultation with a rheumatologist confirmed a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The patient’s lab work was positive for antinuclear antibody titers (1:40), rheumatoid factor (513 IU/mL), and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (248 units/mL). Treatment was started with prednisone 60 mg PO daily, methotrexate 20 mg PO weekly, and hydroxychloroquine 400 mg PO daily. (The benefits of prednisone in treating this patient’s severe arthralgias outweighed concerns over its use in a patient with diabetes.)

After 2 months of receiving RA therapy, the patient underwent further work-up to assess its effectiveness. Liver function testing was performed, and she tested positive for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies. Viral polymerase chain reaction confirmed active HCV infection. Lab work revealed a viral load of 15,000,000 IU/mL; transaminase, 173 U/L (normal range, 4-36 U/L); and aspartate aminotransferase, 246 U/L (normal range, 8-33 U/L). A liver sonogram demonstrated no findings of cirrhosis or fibrosis.

Upon receiving a diagnosis of active hepatitis C, the patient acknowledged that she’d had unprotected heterosexual intercourse and shared used insulin syringes with friends.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Consideration was given to a diagnosis of HCV arthropathy, which can present as an RA-like arthritis in HCV-infected individuals, in the differential diagnosis.¹ A cohort study found HCV-associated arthropathy occurred in 6.8% of those with chronic HCV infection.²

However, the symmetrical involvement of shoulders and knees as the patient’s primary arthralgias, and a rheumatologic work-up showing the presence of anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibody levels, confirmed the diagnosis of RA with coexisting HCV.

DISCUSSION

Delivering interdisciplinary care in a rural area

Although evidence-based guidelines and online HCV Treatment Path programs guided the initial evaluation of potential treatments for this patient, her multiple comorbidities prompted us to seek out additional, interdisciplinary advice through a resource for underserved communities called Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO; see “What is Project ECHO?^3,4”). The patient’s case was presented virtually, without identifying information, to a multidisciplinary HCV team. Two treatment options were suggested:

• sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (400 mg/100 mg) for 12 weeks or
• glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (100 mg/40 mg) for 8 weeks.

Both are evidence-based and recommended treatment options according to the HCV treatment guidelines issued jointly by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.⁵

In most patients with HCV, treatment is guided by a number of factors, including pill burden, access to care, duration of therapy, drug interactions, and patient-specific needs. After analyzing all aspects of this patient’s case, 2 major concerns guided our shared decision-making process on treatment.

The best treatment is what works for the patient

Owing to the patient’s multiple comorbidities and prescribed medications for chronic diseases, concerns about possible medication interactions with the HCV treatment options were a factor in her HCV treatment plan. Additionally, the patient had significant social determinants of health barriers that made continued treatment and follow-up challenging.

The potential interaction of HCV infection treatment with the patient’s current methotrexate therapy for her RA was a primary concern. To determine the risk for interactions, the team used the University of Liverpool HEP/HIV Drug Interactions Checker, which helps identify possible interactions with these disease-specific medication therapies.⁶

Both sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/­pibrentasvir have a potential interaction with methotrexate and are driven by a similar mechanism. Methotrexate is a substrate of the Breast Cancer Resistance Protein efflux transporter (BCRP), and the components of both sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir are inhibitors of BCRP.⁷ The inhibition of this efflux transporter can lead to an increased concentration of methotrexate, increasing the risk for methotrexate toxicity.⁷

Since no quantitative data exist regarding the degree of inhibition that these HCV drugs exert on BCRP, the team considered ­sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/­pibrentasvir to have equal risk with regard to potential for drug interactions.

The patient’s barriers to treatment were another area of concern that directed our therapy decision. The patient had multiple barriers, including poor access to health care because of transportation issues, multiple children requiring care, a variety of chronic diseases, and other life stressors. Shared decision­-making ensured our patient’s autonomy in choosing a specific treatment.

This case shines a light on the multiple challenges that could have come between our patient and proper treatment—but ultimately, did not.

The patient’s social situation and preference narrowed the team’s basis for medication choice primarily down to the duration of therapy: 8 weeks of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir vs 12 weeks of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir. The patient mentioned multiple transportation challenges for follow-up visits to the clinic and therefore wanted to utilize the shorter treatment duration. Follow-up is needed every 4 weeks, so the patient was able to go from 3 to 2 visits.

For problems, there are solutions. Following careful consideration of these patient-specific factors and preferences, the team decided to begin therapy with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir. The patient worked with an outreach specialist at the FQHC to coordinate care and complete paperwork for the Project ECHO consultation. The outreach specialist also assisted the patient in completing paperwork for the Patient Assistance Program for HCV treatment. Because the patient is being cared for at an FQHC, the clinic’s in-house pharmacy was able to utilize the 340B Federal Drug Pricing Program, which makes otherwise out-of-reach medicines affordable for patients such as ours.

Our patient has had no issues with treatment adherence, adverse effects, or follow­-up appointments. The patient’s RA symptoms have improved significantly without any discernable worsening of her HCV infection.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case shines a light on the multiple challenges (clinical, geographic, and financial) that could have come between our patient and proper treatment—but ultimately, did not. The Project ECHO model of care remains a viable way to provide patients who live in rural and underserved communities and who have active HCV and other underlying chronic conditions with interdisciplinary care that can improve health outcomes.

THE CASE

A 24-year-old woman with a history of type 1 diabetes, seizure disorder, and migraines presented to a rural Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) with progressive and severe symmetric large joint arthralgias of several weeks’ duration. The patient’s existing medications included etonogestrel 68 mg subdermal implant, levetiracetam 1500 mg bid, insulin glargine 26 units subcutaneously nightly, and insulin lispro 20 units subcutaneously tid (before meals).

An examination revealed symmetrically edematous elbows, wrists, and fingers. Subsequent serologic analyses and a telemedicine consultation with a rheumatologist confirmed a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The patient’s lab work was positive for antinuclear antibody titers (1:40), rheumatoid factor (513 IU/mL), and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (248 units/mL). Treatment was started with prednisone 60 mg PO daily, methotrexate 20 mg PO weekly, and hydroxychloroquine 400 mg PO daily. (The benefits of prednisone in treating this patient’s severe arthralgias outweighed concerns over its use in a patient with diabetes.)

After 2 months of receiving RA therapy, the patient underwent further work-up to assess its effectiveness. Liver function testing was performed, and she tested positive for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies. Viral polymerase chain reaction confirmed active HCV infection. Lab work revealed a viral load of 15,000,000 IU/mL; transaminase, 173 U/L (normal range, 4-36 U/L); and aspartate aminotransferase, 246 U/L (normal range, 8-33 U/L). A liver sonogram demonstrated no findings of cirrhosis or fibrosis.

Upon receiving a diagnosis of active hepatitis C, the patient acknowledged that she’d had unprotected heterosexual intercourse and shared used insulin syringes with friends.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Consideration was given to a diagnosis of HCV arthropathy, which can present as an RA-like arthritis in HCV-infected individuals, in the differential diagnosis.¹ A cohort study found HCV-associated arthropathy occurred in 6.8% of those with chronic HCV infection.²

However, the symmetrical involvement of shoulders and knees as the patient’s primary arthralgias, and a rheumatologic work-up showing the presence of anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibody levels, confirmed the diagnosis of RA with coexisting HCV.

DISCUSSION

Delivering interdisciplinary care in a rural area

Although evidence-based guidelines and online HCV Treatment Path programs guided the initial evaluation of potential treatments for this patient, her multiple comorbidities prompted us to seek out additional, interdisciplinary advice through a resource for underserved communities called Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO; see “What is Project ECHO?^3,4”). The patient’s case was presented virtually, without identifying information, to a multidisciplinary HCV team. Two treatment options were suggested:

• sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (400 mg/100 mg) for 12 weeks or
• glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (100 mg/40 mg) for 8 weeks.

Both are evidence-based and recommended treatment options according to the HCV treatment guidelines issued jointly by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.⁵

In most patients with HCV, treatment is guided by a number of factors, including pill burden, access to care, duration of therapy, drug interactions, and patient-specific needs. After analyzing all aspects of this patient’s case, 2 major concerns guided our shared decision-making process on treatment.

The best treatment is what works for the patient

Owing to the patient’s multiple comorbidities and prescribed medications for chronic diseases, concerns about possible medication interactions with the HCV treatment options were a factor in her HCV treatment plan. Additionally, the patient had significant social determinants of health barriers that made continued treatment and follow-up challenging.

The potential interaction of HCV infection treatment with the patient’s current methotrexate therapy for her RA was a primary concern. To determine the risk for interactions, the team used the University of Liverpool HEP/HIV Drug Interactions Checker, which helps identify possible interactions with these disease-specific medication therapies.⁶

Both sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/­pibrentasvir have a potential interaction with methotrexate and are driven by a similar mechanism. Methotrexate is a substrate of the Breast Cancer Resistance Protein efflux transporter (BCRP), and the components of both sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir are inhibitors of BCRP.⁷ The inhibition of this efflux transporter can lead to an increased concentration of methotrexate, increasing the risk for methotrexate toxicity.⁷

Since no quantitative data exist regarding the degree of inhibition that these HCV drugs exert on BCRP, the team considered ­sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/­pibrentasvir to have equal risk with regard to potential for drug interactions.

The patient’s barriers to treatment were another area of concern that directed our therapy decision. The patient had multiple barriers, including poor access to health care because of transportation issues, multiple children requiring care, a variety of chronic diseases, and other life stressors. Shared decision­-making ensured our patient’s autonomy in choosing a specific treatment.

This case shines a light on the multiple challenges that could have come between our patient and proper treatment—but ultimately, did not.

The patient’s social situation and preference narrowed the team’s basis for medication choice primarily down to the duration of therapy: 8 weeks of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir vs 12 weeks of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir. The patient mentioned multiple transportation challenges for follow-up visits to the clinic and therefore wanted to utilize the shorter treatment duration. Follow-up is needed every 4 weeks, so the patient was able to go from 3 to 2 visits.

For problems, there are solutions. Following careful consideration of these patient-specific factors and preferences, the team decided to begin therapy with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir. The patient worked with an outreach specialist at the FQHC to coordinate care and complete paperwork for the Project ECHO consultation. The outreach specialist also assisted the patient in completing paperwork for the Patient Assistance Program for HCV treatment. Because the patient is being cared for at an FQHC, the clinic’s in-house pharmacy was able to utilize the 340B Federal Drug Pricing Program, which makes otherwise out-of-reach medicines affordable for patients such as ours.

Our patient has had no issues with treatment adherence, adverse effects, or follow­-up appointments. The patient’s RA symptoms have improved significantly without any discernable worsening of her HCV infection.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case shines a light on the multiple challenges (clinical, geographic, and financial) that could have come between our patient and proper treatment—but ultimately, did not. The Project ECHO model of care remains a viable way to provide patients who live in rural and underserved communities and who have active HCV and other underlying chronic conditions with interdisciplinary care that can improve health outcomes.

THE CASE

A 49-year-old woman was hospitalized with a headache and neck pain that radiated to her ears and eyes in the context of severe hypertension (270/150 mm Hg). Her medical history was significant for heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation, longstanding untreated hypertension, and multiple severe episodes of HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome during pregnancy.

After receiving antihypertensive treatment at a community hospital, her blood pressure gradually improved to 160/100 mm Hg with the addition of a third medication. However, on Day 3 of her stay, her systolic blood pressure rose to more than 200 mm Hg and was accompanied by somnolence, emesis, and paleness. She was transferred to a tertiary care center.

THE DIAGNOSIS

On admission, the patient had left-side hemiparesis and facial droop with dysarthria, resulting in a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 7 (out of 42) and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 (out of 15). Noncontrast computed tomography (CT) and CT angiography of the head and neck were ordered and showed occlusion of both intracranial vertebral arteries. There were also signs of multifocal infarction in her occipital lobes, thus systemic recombinant human-tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) could not be administered.

The patient was next taken to the angiography suite, where a digital subtraction angiography confirmed the presence of bilateral vertebral artery occlusions (FIGURE 1A). A thrombectomy was performed to open the left occluded segment, resulting in recanalization; however, a high-grade stenosis remained in the intracranial left vertebral artery (FIGURE 1B). The right vertebral artery had a severe extracranial origin stenosis, and balloon angioplasty was performed in order to reach the intracranial circulation; however, the occlusion of the intracranial right vertebral artery segment could not be catheterized. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography showed that the intracranial left vertebral artery with high-grade stenosis had closed down again; thus, there was occlusion of both intracranial vertebral arteries and absent flow signal in the basilar artery (FIGURE 2). There were scattered small acute strokes within the cerebellum, brainstem, and occipital lobes.

Unfortunately, within 48 hours, the patient’s NIHSS score increased from 7 to 29. She developed tetraplegia, was significantly less responsive (GCS score, 3/15), and required intubation and mechanical ventilation. Reopening the stenosis and keeping it open with a stent would be an aggressive procedure with poor odds for success and would require antithrombotic medications with the associated risk for intracranial hemorrhage in the setting of demarcated strokes. Thus, no further intervention was pursued.

Further standard stroke work-up (echocardiography, extracranial ultrasound of the cerebral circulation, and vasculitis screening) was unremarkable. In the intensive care unit, intravenous therapeutic heparin was initiated because of the potential prothrombotic effect of the factor V Leiden mutation but was subsequently switched to dual anti-­aggregation therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d and clopidogrel 75 mg/d) as secondary stroke prevention given the final diagnosis of severe atherosclerosis. Nevertheless, the patient remained tetraplegic with a partial locked-in syndrome when she was discharged, after 2 weeks in the tertiary care center, to a rehabilitation center.

DISCUSSION

Posterior circulation strokes account for 20% to 25% of all ischemic strokes^1,2 and are associated with infarction within the vertebrobasilar arterial system. Common etiologies of these infarctions include atherosclerosis (as seen in our patient), embolism, small-artery penetrating disease, and arterial dissection.² Although the estimated overall mortality of these strokes is low (3.6% to 11%),² basilar occlusion syndrome, in particular, is a life-threatening condition with a high mortality rate of 80% to 90%.³

Continue to: Diagnosis can be particularly challenging...

Diagnosis can be particularly challenging due to the anatomic variations of posterior arterial circulation, as well as the fluctuating nonfocal or multifocal symptoms.² Specific symptoms include vertigo, ataxia, unilateral motor weakness, dysarthria, and oculomotor dysfunction. However, nonspecific symptoms such as headache, nausea, dizziness, hoarseness, falls, and Horner syndrome may be the only presenting signs of a posterior circulation stroke—as was the case with our patient.² Her radiating neck pain could have been interpreted as a pointer to vertebral artery dissection within the context of severe hypertension.⁴ Unfortunately, the diagnosis was delayed and head imaging was obtained only after her mental status deteriorated.

Immediate neuroimaging is necessary to guide treatment in patients with suspected acute posterior circulation stroke,^1,5,6 although it is not always definitive. While CT is pivotal in stroke work-up and may reliably exclude intracranial hemorrhage, its ability to detect acute posterior circulation ischemic strokes is limited given its poor visualization of the posterior fossa (as low as 16% sensitivity).⁵ Fortunately, CT angiography has a high sensitivity (nearing 100%) for large-vessel occlusion and high predictive values for dissection (65%-100% positive predictive value and 70%-98% negative predictive value).^5,7 ­Diffusion-weighted MRI (when available in the emergency setting) has the highest sensitivity for detecting acute infarcts, although posterior circulation infarcts still can be missed (19% false-negative rate).^5,8 Thus, correlative vessel imaging with magnetic resonance or CT angiography is very important, along with a high index of suspicion. In some instances, repeat MRI may be necessary to detect small strokes.

A patient-specific approach to management is key for individuals with suspected posterior circulation stroke.⁵ Because specific data for the appropriate management of posterior circulation ischemic stroke are lacking, current American Heart ­Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) guidelines apply to anterior and ­posterior circulation strokes.⁶ For eligible ­patients without multifocal disease, intravenous tPA is the first-line therapy and should be initiated according to guidelines within 4.5 hours of stroke onset⁹; it is important to note that these guidelines are based on studies that ­focused more on anterior circulation strokes than posterior circulation strokes.^6,9-13 This can be done in combination with ­endovascular therapy, which consists of ­mechanical thrombectomy, intra-arterial thrombolysis, or a combination of revascularization ­techniques.^3,5,6

Nonspecific symptoms such as headache, nausea, and dizziness may be the only presenting signs of a posterior circulation stroke.

Mechanical thrombectomy specifically has high proven recanalization rates for all target vessels.^3-6 The latest AHA/ASA guidelines recommend mechanical thrombectomy be performed within 6 hours of stroke onset.⁶ However, there is emerging evidence that suggests this timeframe should be ­extended—even beyond 24 hours—given the poor prognosis of posterior circulation strokes.^5,6,14 More data on the management of posterior circulation strokes are urgently needed to better understand which therapeutic approach is most efficient.

In patients such as ours, who have evidence of multifocal disease, treatment may be limited to endovascular therapy. Intracranial stenting of symptomatic lesions in particular has been controversial since the publication of the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis trial, which found that aggressive medical management was superior to stenting in patients who recently had a transient ischemic attack or stroke attributed to stenosis.¹⁵ Although additional studies have been performed, there are no definitive data on the topic—and certainly no data in the emergency setting.¹⁶ Further challenges are raised in patients with bilateral disease, as was the case with this patient.

When our patient was admitted to the rehabilitation clinic, she had a GCS score of 10 to 11/15. After 9 months of rehabilitation, she was discharged home with a GCS score of 15/15 and persistent left-side hemiparesis.

THE TAKEAWAY

Posterior circulation stroke is a life-­threatening disease that may manifest with a variety of symptoms and be difficult to identify on emergent imaging. Thus, a high degree of clinical suspicion and additional follow-up are paramount to ensure prompt diagnosis and a patient-tailored treatment strategy.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kristine A. Blackham, MD, Associate Professor, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031 Basel, Switzerland; [email protected] Orcid no: 0000-0002-1620-1144 (Dr. Blackham); 0000-0002- 5225-5414 (Dr. Saleh)

THE CASE

A 49-year-old woman was hospitalized with a headache and neck pain that radiated to her ears and eyes in the context of severe hypertension (270/150 mm Hg). Her medical history was significant for heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation, longstanding untreated hypertension, and multiple severe episodes of HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome during pregnancy.

After receiving antihypertensive treatment at a community hospital, her blood pressure gradually improved to 160/100 mm Hg with the addition of a third medication. However, on Day 3 of her stay, her systolic blood pressure rose to more than 200 mm Hg and was accompanied by somnolence, emesis, and paleness. She was transferred to a tertiary care center.

THE DIAGNOSIS

On admission, the patient had left-side hemiparesis and facial droop with dysarthria, resulting in a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 7 (out of 42) and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 (out of 15). Noncontrast computed tomography (CT) and CT angiography of the head and neck were ordered and showed occlusion of both intracranial vertebral arteries. There were also signs of multifocal infarction in her occipital lobes, thus systemic recombinant human-tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) could not be administered.

The patient was next taken to the angiography suite, where a digital subtraction angiography confirmed the presence of bilateral vertebral artery occlusions (FIGURE 1A). A thrombectomy was performed to open the left occluded segment, resulting in recanalization; however, a high-grade stenosis remained in the intracranial left vertebral artery (FIGURE 1B). The right vertebral artery had a severe extracranial origin stenosis, and balloon angioplasty was performed in order to reach the intracranial circulation; however, the occlusion of the intracranial right vertebral artery segment could not be catheterized. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography showed that the intracranial left vertebral artery with high-grade stenosis had closed down again; thus, there was occlusion of both intracranial vertebral arteries and absent flow signal in the basilar artery (FIGURE 2). There were scattered small acute strokes within the cerebellum, brainstem, and occipital lobes.

Unfortunately, within 48 hours, the patient’s NIHSS score increased from 7 to 29. She developed tetraplegia, was significantly less responsive (GCS score, 3/15), and required intubation and mechanical ventilation. Reopening the stenosis and keeping it open with a stent would be an aggressive procedure with poor odds for success and would require antithrombotic medications with the associated risk for intracranial hemorrhage in the setting of demarcated strokes. Thus, no further intervention was pursued.

Further standard stroke work-up (echocardiography, extracranial ultrasound of the cerebral circulation, and vasculitis screening) was unremarkable. In the intensive care unit, intravenous therapeutic heparin was initiated because of the potential prothrombotic effect of the factor V Leiden mutation but was subsequently switched to dual anti-­aggregation therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d and clopidogrel 75 mg/d) as secondary stroke prevention given the final diagnosis of severe atherosclerosis. Nevertheless, the patient remained tetraplegic with a partial locked-in syndrome when she was discharged, after 2 weeks in the tertiary care center, to a rehabilitation center.

DISCUSSION

Posterior circulation strokes account for 20% to 25% of all ischemic strokes^1,2 and are associated with infarction within the vertebrobasilar arterial system. Common etiologies of these infarctions include atherosclerosis (as seen in our patient), embolism, small-artery penetrating disease, and arterial dissection.² Although the estimated overall mortality of these strokes is low (3.6% to 11%),² basilar occlusion syndrome, in particular, is a life-threatening condition with a high mortality rate of 80% to 90%.³

Continue to: Diagnosis can be particularly challenging...

Diagnosis can be particularly challenging due to the anatomic variations of posterior arterial circulation, as well as the fluctuating nonfocal or multifocal symptoms.² Specific symptoms include vertigo, ataxia, unilateral motor weakness, dysarthria, and oculomotor dysfunction. However, nonspecific symptoms such as headache, nausea, dizziness, hoarseness, falls, and Horner syndrome may be the only presenting signs of a posterior circulation stroke—as was the case with our patient.² Her radiating neck pain could have been interpreted as a pointer to vertebral artery dissection within the context of severe hypertension.⁴ Unfortunately, the diagnosis was delayed and head imaging was obtained only after her mental status deteriorated.

Immediate neuroimaging is necessary to guide treatment in patients with suspected acute posterior circulation stroke,^1,5,6 although it is not always definitive. While CT is pivotal in stroke work-up and may reliably exclude intracranial hemorrhage, its ability to detect acute posterior circulation ischemic strokes is limited given its poor visualization of the posterior fossa (as low as 16% sensitivity).⁵ Fortunately, CT angiography has a high sensitivity (nearing 100%) for large-vessel occlusion and high predictive values for dissection (65%-100% positive predictive value and 70%-98% negative predictive value).^5,7 ­Diffusion-weighted MRI (when available in the emergency setting) has the highest sensitivity for detecting acute infarcts, although posterior circulation infarcts still can be missed (19% false-negative rate).^5,8 Thus, correlative vessel imaging with magnetic resonance or CT angiography is very important, along with a high index of suspicion. In some instances, repeat MRI may be necessary to detect small strokes.

A patient-specific approach to management is key for individuals with suspected posterior circulation stroke.⁵ Because specific data for the appropriate management of posterior circulation ischemic stroke are lacking, current American Heart ­Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) guidelines apply to anterior and ­posterior circulation strokes.⁶ For eligible ­patients without multifocal disease, intravenous tPA is the first-line therapy and should be initiated according to guidelines within 4.5 hours of stroke onset⁹; it is important to note that these guidelines are based on studies that ­focused more on anterior circulation strokes than posterior circulation strokes.^6,9-13 This can be done in combination with ­endovascular therapy, which consists of ­mechanical thrombectomy, intra-arterial thrombolysis, or a combination of revascularization ­techniques.^3,5,6

Nonspecific symptoms such as headache, nausea, and dizziness may be the only presenting signs of a posterior circulation stroke.

Mechanical thrombectomy specifically has high proven recanalization rates for all target vessels.^3-6 The latest AHA/ASA guidelines recommend mechanical thrombectomy be performed within 6 hours of stroke onset.⁶ However, there is emerging evidence that suggests this timeframe should be ­extended—even beyond 24 hours—given the poor prognosis of posterior circulation strokes.^5,6,14 More data on the management of posterior circulation strokes are urgently needed to better understand which therapeutic approach is most efficient.

In patients such as ours, who have evidence of multifocal disease, treatment may be limited to endovascular therapy. Intracranial stenting of symptomatic lesions in particular has been controversial since the publication of the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis trial, which found that aggressive medical management was superior to stenting in patients who recently had a transient ischemic attack or stroke attributed to stenosis.¹⁵ Although additional studies have been performed, there are no definitive data on the topic—and certainly no data in the emergency setting.¹⁶ Further challenges are raised in patients with bilateral disease, as was the case with this patient.

When our patient was admitted to the rehabilitation clinic, she had a GCS score of 10 to 11/15. After 9 months of rehabilitation, she was discharged home with a GCS score of 15/15 and persistent left-side hemiparesis.

THE TAKEAWAY

Posterior circulation stroke is a life-­threatening disease that may manifest with a variety of symptoms and be difficult to identify on emergent imaging. Thus, a high degree of clinical suspicion and additional follow-up are paramount to ensure prompt diagnosis and a patient-tailored treatment strategy.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kristine A. Blackham, MD, Associate Professor, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031 Basel, Switzerland; [email protected] Orcid no: 0000-0002-1620-1144 (Dr. Blackham); 0000-0002- 5225-5414 (Dr. Saleh)

THE CASE

A 49-year-old woman was hospitalized with a headache and neck pain that radiated to her ears and eyes in the context of severe hypertension (270/150 mm Hg). Her medical history was significant for heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation, longstanding untreated hypertension, and multiple severe episodes of HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome during pregnancy.

After receiving antihypertensive treatment at a community hospital, her blood pressure gradually improved to 160/100 mm Hg with the addition of a third medication. However, on Day 3 of her stay, her systolic blood pressure rose to more than 200 mm Hg and was accompanied by somnolence, emesis, and paleness. She was transferred to a tertiary care center.

THE DIAGNOSIS

On admission, the patient had left-side hemiparesis and facial droop with dysarthria, resulting in a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 7 (out of 42) and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 (out of 15). Noncontrast computed tomography (CT) and CT angiography of the head and neck were ordered and showed occlusion of both intracranial vertebral arteries. There were also signs of multifocal infarction in her occipital lobes, thus systemic recombinant human-tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) could not be administered.

The patient was next taken to the angiography suite, where a digital subtraction angiography confirmed the presence of bilateral vertebral artery occlusions (FIGURE 1A). A thrombectomy was performed to open the left occluded segment, resulting in recanalization; however, a high-grade stenosis remained in the intracranial left vertebral artery (FIGURE 1B). The right vertebral artery had a severe extracranial origin stenosis, and balloon angioplasty was performed in order to reach the intracranial circulation; however, the occlusion of the intracranial right vertebral artery segment could not be catheterized. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography showed that the intracranial left vertebral artery with high-grade stenosis had closed down again; thus, there was occlusion of both intracranial vertebral arteries and absent flow signal in the basilar artery (FIGURE 2). There were scattered small acute strokes within the cerebellum, brainstem, and occipital lobes.

Unfortunately, within 48 hours, the patient’s NIHSS score increased from 7 to 29. She developed tetraplegia, was significantly less responsive (GCS score, 3/15), and required intubation and mechanical ventilation. Reopening the stenosis and keeping it open with a stent would be an aggressive procedure with poor odds for success and would require antithrombotic medications with the associated risk for intracranial hemorrhage in the setting of demarcated strokes. Thus, no further intervention was pursued.

Further standard stroke work-up (echocardiography, extracranial ultrasound of the cerebral circulation, and vasculitis screening) was unremarkable. In the intensive care unit, intravenous therapeutic heparin was initiated because of the potential prothrombotic effect of the factor V Leiden mutation but was subsequently switched to dual anti-­aggregation therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d and clopidogrel 75 mg/d) as secondary stroke prevention given the final diagnosis of severe atherosclerosis. Nevertheless, the patient remained tetraplegic with a partial locked-in syndrome when she was discharged, after 2 weeks in the tertiary care center, to a rehabilitation center.

DISCUSSION

Posterior circulation strokes account for 20% to 25% of all ischemic strokes^1,2 and are associated with infarction within the vertebrobasilar arterial system. Common etiologies of these infarctions include atherosclerosis (as seen in our patient), embolism, small-artery penetrating disease, and arterial dissection.² Although the estimated overall mortality of these strokes is low (3.6% to 11%),² basilar occlusion syndrome, in particular, is a life-threatening condition with a high mortality rate of 80% to 90%.³

Continue to: Diagnosis can be particularly challenging...

Diagnosis can be particularly challenging due to the anatomic variations of posterior arterial circulation, as well as the fluctuating nonfocal or multifocal symptoms.² Specific symptoms include vertigo, ataxia, unilateral motor weakness, dysarthria, and oculomotor dysfunction. However, nonspecific symptoms such as headache, nausea, dizziness, hoarseness, falls, and Horner syndrome may be the only presenting signs of a posterior circulation stroke—as was the case with our patient.² Her radiating neck pain could have been interpreted as a pointer to vertebral artery dissection within the context of severe hypertension.⁴ Unfortunately, the diagnosis was delayed and head imaging was obtained only after her mental status deteriorated.

Immediate neuroimaging is necessary to guide treatment in patients with suspected acute posterior circulation stroke,^1,5,6 although it is not always definitive. While CT is pivotal in stroke work-up and may reliably exclude intracranial hemorrhage, its ability to detect acute posterior circulation ischemic strokes is limited given its poor visualization of the posterior fossa (as low as 16% sensitivity).⁵ Fortunately, CT angiography has a high sensitivity (nearing 100%) for large-vessel occlusion and high predictive values for dissection (65%-100% positive predictive value and 70%-98% negative predictive value).^5,7 ­Diffusion-weighted MRI (when available in the emergency setting) has the highest sensitivity for detecting acute infarcts, although posterior circulation infarcts still can be missed (19% false-negative rate).^5,8 Thus, correlative vessel imaging with magnetic resonance or CT angiography is very important, along with a high index of suspicion. In some instances, repeat MRI may be necessary to detect small strokes.

A patient-specific approach to management is key for individuals with suspected posterior circulation stroke.⁵ Because specific data for the appropriate management of posterior circulation ischemic stroke are lacking, current American Heart ­Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) guidelines apply to anterior and ­posterior circulation strokes.⁶ For eligible ­patients without multifocal disease, intravenous tPA is the first-line therapy and should be initiated according to guidelines within 4.5 hours of stroke onset⁹; it is important to note that these guidelines are based on studies that ­focused more on anterior circulation strokes than posterior circulation strokes.^6,9-13 This can be done in combination with ­endovascular therapy, which consists of ­mechanical thrombectomy, intra-arterial thrombolysis, or a combination of revascularization ­techniques.^3,5,6

Nonspecific symptoms such as headache, nausea, and dizziness may be the only presenting signs of a posterior circulation stroke.

Mechanical thrombectomy specifically has high proven recanalization rates for all target vessels.^3-6 The latest AHA/ASA guidelines recommend mechanical thrombectomy be performed within 6 hours of stroke onset.⁶ However, there is emerging evidence that suggests this timeframe should be ­extended—even beyond 24 hours—given the poor prognosis of posterior circulation strokes.^5,6,14 More data on the management of posterior circulation strokes are urgently needed to better understand which therapeutic approach is most efficient.

In patients such as ours, who have evidence of multifocal disease, treatment may be limited to endovascular therapy. Intracranial stenting of symptomatic lesions in particular has been controversial since the publication of the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis trial, which found that aggressive medical management was superior to stenting in patients who recently had a transient ischemic attack or stroke attributed to stenosis.¹⁵ Although additional studies have been performed, there are no definitive data on the topic—and certainly no data in the emergency setting.¹⁶ Further challenges are raised in patients with bilateral disease, as was the case with this patient.

When our patient was admitted to the rehabilitation clinic, she had a GCS score of 10 to 11/15. After 9 months of rehabilitation, she was discharged home with a GCS score of 15/15 and persistent left-side hemiparesis.

THE TAKEAWAY

Posterior circulation stroke is a life-­threatening disease that may manifest with a variety of symptoms and be difficult to identify on emergent imaging. Thus, a high degree of clinical suspicion and additional follow-up are paramount to ensure prompt diagnosis and a patient-tailored treatment strategy.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kristine A. Blackham, MD, Associate Professor, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031 Basel, Switzerland; [email protected] Orcid no: 0000-0002-1620-1144 (Dr. Blackham); 0000-0002- 5225-5414 (Dr. Saleh)