CAD & Atherosclerosis

No significant difference in cardiovascular events or major bleeding was shown between patients with established coronary heart disease assigned to a daily aspirin dose of 81 mg and those receiving a dose of 325 mg in the 15,000-patient ADAPTABLE trial.

Although substantial dose switching occurred in the trial, particularly from the higher to the lower dose, lead investigator W. Schuyler Jones, MD, believes the results support the use of the 81-mg dose in most patients.  

“While we would have liked to see higher adherence to the assigned doses, we think the results of the trial are reliable,” Dr. Jones said in an interview.

The real-world, open-label, pragmatic trial also involved an innovative low-cost design allowing researchers to identify and communicate with eligible patients directly, opening up a new cost-effective method to conduct clinical research going forward.

Dr. Jones, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., presented the ADAPTABLE results at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.   

He noted there were mixed signals in the results. “For example, the main intent-to-treat analysis showed a trend to a lower rate of all-cause death in the 81-mg group, but the subgroup of patients who stayed on the 325-mg dose throughout the study had a lower event rate. But overall, there was no difference.”

Dr. Jones said the investigators had the following take-home messages to patients: “If a patient is already taking 81 mg, staying on this dose is probably right given the similar study results for the primary endpoint and that we didn’t find conclusive evidence that 325 mg is better. But for patients who have tolerated 325 mg long term, then they may want to stay on this dose as it may be associated with moderate benefit.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that, overall, patients who switched doses tended to do worse, but he suggested this may have been more to do with underlying reasons for switching rather than the different dose itself. “For example, switching often happens after bleeding or bruising, which can also often preempt an ischemic event, and other illnesses, such as cancer or atrial fibrillation, can also lead patients to change doses.”

“With the caveat that this trial did not include new patients (the vast majority of patients had been taking aspirin previously) the results support the approach of starting new patients on 81 mg, which is what we have been seeing in evolving clinical practice in recent years,” he added.  

Dr. Jones explained that the trial set out to answer the simple but important question about the best dose of aspirin in patients with heart disease.

“Aspirin has been established as an appropriate long-term medication for patients with ischemic heart disease since the 1980s, but we really don’t have any good information on the correct dose.

He noted that the U.S. guidelines suggest any dose in the range of 81 mg to 325 mg daily can be used, whereas the European guidelines recommend 81 mg daily, although this is mainly based on observational data and expert opinion; there is little hard, randomized-trial evidence.

The ADAPTABLE trial randomly assigned 15,076 patients with established heart disease to receive 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin. Before randomization, 96% of those with available information were already taking aspirin, 85% of whom were taking 81 mg.

After a mean follow-up of 26 months, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke – had occurred in 7.28% of the 81-mg group and 7.51% of the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.14).     

The main safety endpoint, hospitalization for major bleeding with an associated blood transfusion, occurred in 0.63% of the 81-mg group and 0.60% of the 325-mg group (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79-1.77).

“The bleeding safety endpoint looked similar, which may be counterintuitive to what may have been expected,” Dr. Jones commented. “However, the safety endpoint was very stringent. We still haven’t analyzed all the less serious ADR [adverse drug event]/bleeding data, but overall, it does appear to be balanced.”

He added: “Most cardiologists probably may not have expected to see much difference in efficacy between these two doses but would maybe have anticipated a lower bleeding rate with the low dose. I was a little surprised to see such a low bleeding rate in the 325-mg group.”

Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching (41.6%) than those assigned to 81 mg (7.1%) and were more likely to discontinue treatment (11.1% vs. 7.0%). This resulted in fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose in the 325-mg group (434 vs. 650 days).

“This was an open-label study, and such studies always suffer from a degree of infidelity to the assigned treatment group,” Dr. Jones said. “In ADAPTABLE, this was unbalanced in that a much greater number of patients switched from 325 mg to 81 mg than the other way round.”   

“But our results do reflect what happens in normal life,” he added. “People behaved in the study like they do in the real world. They sometimes changed their dose and sometimes stopped taking aspirin altogether. So, I think the results are an accurate representation of the real world.”

A sensitivity analysis based on which dose the patient actually reported taking showed a higher risk for death, MI, or stroke in patients who took 81 mg than those who took 325 mg (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43). But as with any postrandomization analysis, this approach has many inherent biases, Dr. Jones cautioned.
 

Innovative study design  

The ADAPTABLE study used an innovative low-cost design, which involved direct communication with the patients themselves.

Using the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), a group of 40 U.S. centers committed to compiling data in a common format, invitations to enroll in the study were sent to eligible patients identified from medical records. Consent and randomization took place on the patient web portal. 

Participants then purchased aspirin at the assigned dose themselves, and all follow-up was done virtually or on the phone, with outcomes ascertained remotely (from patient reports, electronic medical records, and insurance claims) without adjudication.   

“This is a pretty neat way to do clinical research, enabling us to conduct a 15,000-patient trial on a very tight budget,” Dr. Jones commented. 

He estimated that the trial cost around $18 to $19 million. “No industry funder would have sponsored such a study of aspirin, and a typical trial with this many patients conducted in the traditional way would have cost at least 5 or 10 times more,” he said.

“This is the first time this type of study has been done in the U.S. on such a large scale, and it opens up this method for future research.”

He explained that this design, communicating directly with patients, somewhat limits the questions that can be addressed. “As aspirin is purchased over the counter by patients themselves, this is a question that lent itself to be answered in this way.” 

Another innovative design feature was the inclusion of “patient partners,” with one patient nominated by each center to be part of the organization of the trial. “This helped keep the research relevant to what patients care about.

They also helped with the recruitment strategy and communication with participants. I think this is something we need to continue and prioritize in clinical research going forward,” Dr. Jones noted.

‘Pioneering’ trial

Discussants of the study at the ACC presentation congratulated the investigators on conducting such an innovative trial.

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said, “This is really a pioneering large pragmatic trial, and we’re going to need to see more of these over the next few years. The most important legacy from this trial for me is that you did it, and that you showed us many of the promises and some of the pitfalls of these large pragmatic designs.”

Akshay Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, added: “This was an innovative approach to answering an important question for daily clinical practice.”

On the results of the study, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, “Maybe the outcomes were not too surprising, and I certainly endorse your cautious status quo statement about patients staying on the dose that they are on.”

But he suggested that the bleeding safety outcomes were perhaps a little unexpected, being a little lower in the lower-dose group, and he asked whether there was a sensitivity analysis looking at bleeding on a per protocol basis. Dr. Jones answered that this was planned.

Dr. Desai also raised questions about the “unusual bleeding endpoint,” noting that the rates of bleeding were far lower than would be expected, compared with other clinical trials.

Dr. Jones replied that the bleeding endpoint with blood product transfusion was chosen to allow the researchers to accurately identify these events in claims codes. He said the endpoint probably mirrored the GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) severe bleeding classification.

In an editorial accompanying the publication of ADAPTABLE, Colin Baigent, FMedSci, says the study provides proof of principle that large pragmatic randomized trials can be conducted in the United States.

But Dr. Baigent, who is professor of epidemiology and director of the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), says that the high degree of switching between dosages that occurred during the trial gives rise to some uncertainty about the results.  

“Because switching was not likely to have been at random, bias arising from this degree of crossover could have obscured a true difference in efficacy or safety (or both), and moreover it is also not possible to conclude that the lack of any significant difference between the two dose groups implies equivalence of the effects of the doses,” he writes.

He suggests that a pilot study may have identified a preference for the 81-mg dose and allowed methods to facilitate equipoise, such as a run-in period with both doses, and only patients adhering being considered for randomization.  

But Dr. Baigent concludes that the ADAPTABLE trial is a “major achievement” in that it paves the way for low-cost randomized trials in the United States, which should allow many more clinical questions to be answered.

The trial was supported by an award from the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute.  Dr. Schuyler Jones reports consultant fees/honoraria from Bayer Healthcare and Janssen and research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Baigent reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and National Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work.
 

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

No significant difference in cardiovascular events or major bleeding was shown between patients with established coronary heart disease assigned to a daily aspirin dose of 81 mg and those receiving a dose of 325 mg in the 15,000-patient ADAPTABLE trial.

Although substantial dose switching occurred in the trial, particularly from the higher to the lower dose, lead investigator W. Schuyler Jones, MD, believes the results support the use of the 81-mg dose in most patients.  

“While we would have liked to see higher adherence to the assigned doses, we think the results of the trial are reliable,” Dr. Jones said in an interview.

The real-world, open-label, pragmatic trial also involved an innovative low-cost design allowing researchers to identify and communicate with eligible patients directly, opening up a new cost-effective method to conduct clinical research going forward.

Dr. Jones, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., presented the ADAPTABLE results at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.   

He noted there were mixed signals in the results. “For example, the main intent-to-treat analysis showed a trend to a lower rate of all-cause death in the 81-mg group, but the subgroup of patients who stayed on the 325-mg dose throughout the study had a lower event rate. But overall, there was no difference.”

Dr. Jones said the investigators had the following take-home messages to patients: “If a patient is already taking 81 mg, staying on this dose is probably right given the similar study results for the primary endpoint and that we didn’t find conclusive evidence that 325 mg is better. But for patients who have tolerated 325 mg long term, then they may want to stay on this dose as it may be associated with moderate benefit.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that, overall, patients who switched doses tended to do worse, but he suggested this may have been more to do with underlying reasons for switching rather than the different dose itself. “For example, switching often happens after bleeding or bruising, which can also often preempt an ischemic event, and other illnesses, such as cancer or atrial fibrillation, can also lead patients to change doses.”

“With the caveat that this trial did not include new patients (the vast majority of patients had been taking aspirin previously) the results support the approach of starting new patients on 81 mg, which is what we have been seeing in evolving clinical practice in recent years,” he added.  

Dr. Jones explained that the trial set out to answer the simple but important question about the best dose of aspirin in patients with heart disease.

“Aspirin has been established as an appropriate long-term medication for patients with ischemic heart disease since the 1980s, but we really don’t have any good information on the correct dose.

He noted that the U.S. guidelines suggest any dose in the range of 81 mg to 325 mg daily can be used, whereas the European guidelines recommend 81 mg daily, although this is mainly based on observational data and expert opinion; there is little hard, randomized-trial evidence.

The ADAPTABLE trial randomly assigned 15,076 patients with established heart disease to receive 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin. Before randomization, 96% of those with available information were already taking aspirin, 85% of whom were taking 81 mg.

After a mean follow-up of 26 months, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke – had occurred in 7.28% of the 81-mg group and 7.51% of the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.14).     

The main safety endpoint, hospitalization for major bleeding with an associated blood transfusion, occurred in 0.63% of the 81-mg group and 0.60% of the 325-mg group (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79-1.77).

“The bleeding safety endpoint looked similar, which may be counterintuitive to what may have been expected,” Dr. Jones commented. “However, the safety endpoint was very stringent. We still haven’t analyzed all the less serious ADR [adverse drug event]/bleeding data, but overall, it does appear to be balanced.”

He added: “Most cardiologists probably may not have expected to see much difference in efficacy between these two doses but would maybe have anticipated a lower bleeding rate with the low dose. I was a little surprised to see such a low bleeding rate in the 325-mg group.”

Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching (41.6%) than those assigned to 81 mg (7.1%) and were more likely to discontinue treatment (11.1% vs. 7.0%). This resulted in fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose in the 325-mg group (434 vs. 650 days).

“This was an open-label study, and such studies always suffer from a degree of infidelity to the assigned treatment group,” Dr. Jones said. “In ADAPTABLE, this was unbalanced in that a much greater number of patients switched from 325 mg to 81 mg than the other way round.”   

“But our results do reflect what happens in normal life,” he added. “People behaved in the study like they do in the real world. They sometimes changed their dose and sometimes stopped taking aspirin altogether. So, I think the results are an accurate representation of the real world.”

A sensitivity analysis based on which dose the patient actually reported taking showed a higher risk for death, MI, or stroke in patients who took 81 mg than those who took 325 mg (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43). But as with any postrandomization analysis, this approach has many inherent biases, Dr. Jones cautioned.
 

Innovative study design  

The ADAPTABLE study used an innovative low-cost design, which involved direct communication with the patients themselves.

Using the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), a group of 40 U.S. centers committed to compiling data in a common format, invitations to enroll in the study were sent to eligible patients identified from medical records. Consent and randomization took place on the patient web portal. 

Participants then purchased aspirin at the assigned dose themselves, and all follow-up was done virtually or on the phone, with outcomes ascertained remotely (from patient reports, electronic medical records, and insurance claims) without adjudication.   

“This is a pretty neat way to do clinical research, enabling us to conduct a 15,000-patient trial on a very tight budget,” Dr. Jones commented. 

He estimated that the trial cost around $18 to $19 million. “No industry funder would have sponsored such a study of aspirin, and a typical trial with this many patients conducted in the traditional way would have cost at least 5 or 10 times more,” he said.

“This is the first time this type of study has been done in the U.S. on such a large scale, and it opens up this method for future research.”

He explained that this design, communicating directly with patients, somewhat limits the questions that can be addressed. “As aspirin is purchased over the counter by patients themselves, this is a question that lent itself to be answered in this way.” 

Another innovative design feature was the inclusion of “patient partners,” with one patient nominated by each center to be part of the organization of the trial. “This helped keep the research relevant to what patients care about.

They also helped with the recruitment strategy and communication with participants. I think this is something we need to continue and prioritize in clinical research going forward,” Dr. Jones noted.

‘Pioneering’ trial

Discussants of the study at the ACC presentation congratulated the investigators on conducting such an innovative trial.

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said, “This is really a pioneering large pragmatic trial, and we’re going to need to see more of these over the next few years. The most important legacy from this trial for me is that you did it, and that you showed us many of the promises and some of the pitfalls of these large pragmatic designs.”

Akshay Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, added: “This was an innovative approach to answering an important question for daily clinical practice.”

On the results of the study, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, “Maybe the outcomes were not too surprising, and I certainly endorse your cautious status quo statement about patients staying on the dose that they are on.”

But he suggested that the bleeding safety outcomes were perhaps a little unexpected, being a little lower in the lower-dose group, and he asked whether there was a sensitivity analysis looking at bleeding on a per protocol basis. Dr. Jones answered that this was planned.

Dr. Desai also raised questions about the “unusual bleeding endpoint,” noting that the rates of bleeding were far lower than would be expected, compared with other clinical trials.

Dr. Jones replied that the bleeding endpoint with blood product transfusion was chosen to allow the researchers to accurately identify these events in claims codes. He said the endpoint probably mirrored the GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) severe bleeding classification.

In an editorial accompanying the publication of ADAPTABLE, Colin Baigent, FMedSci, says the study provides proof of principle that large pragmatic randomized trials can be conducted in the United States.

But Dr. Baigent, who is professor of epidemiology and director of the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), says that the high degree of switching between dosages that occurred during the trial gives rise to some uncertainty about the results.  

“Because switching was not likely to have been at random, bias arising from this degree of crossover could have obscured a true difference in efficacy or safety (or both), and moreover it is also not possible to conclude that the lack of any significant difference between the two dose groups implies equivalence of the effects of the doses,” he writes.

He suggests that a pilot study may have identified a preference for the 81-mg dose and allowed methods to facilitate equipoise, such as a run-in period with both doses, and only patients adhering being considered for randomization.  

But Dr. Baigent concludes that the ADAPTABLE trial is a “major achievement” in that it paves the way for low-cost randomized trials in the United States, which should allow many more clinical questions to be answered.

The trial was supported by an award from the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute.  Dr. Schuyler Jones reports consultant fees/honoraria from Bayer Healthcare and Janssen and research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Baigent reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and National Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work.
 

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

No significant difference in cardiovascular events or major bleeding was shown between patients with established coronary heart disease assigned to a daily aspirin dose of 81 mg and those receiving a dose of 325 mg in the 15,000-patient ADAPTABLE trial.

Although substantial dose switching occurred in the trial, particularly from the higher to the lower dose, lead investigator W. Schuyler Jones, MD, believes the results support the use of the 81-mg dose in most patients.  

“While we would have liked to see higher adherence to the assigned doses, we think the results of the trial are reliable,” Dr. Jones said in an interview.

The real-world, open-label, pragmatic trial also involved an innovative low-cost design allowing researchers to identify and communicate with eligible patients directly, opening up a new cost-effective method to conduct clinical research going forward.

Dr. Jones, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., presented the ADAPTABLE results at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.   

He noted there were mixed signals in the results. “For example, the main intent-to-treat analysis showed a trend to a lower rate of all-cause death in the 81-mg group, but the subgroup of patients who stayed on the 325-mg dose throughout the study had a lower event rate. But overall, there was no difference.”

Dr. Jones said the investigators had the following take-home messages to patients: “If a patient is already taking 81 mg, staying on this dose is probably right given the similar study results for the primary endpoint and that we didn’t find conclusive evidence that 325 mg is better. But for patients who have tolerated 325 mg long term, then they may want to stay on this dose as it may be associated with moderate benefit.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that, overall, patients who switched doses tended to do worse, but he suggested this may have been more to do with underlying reasons for switching rather than the different dose itself. “For example, switching often happens after bleeding or bruising, which can also often preempt an ischemic event, and other illnesses, such as cancer or atrial fibrillation, can also lead patients to change doses.”

“With the caveat that this trial did not include new patients (the vast majority of patients had been taking aspirin previously) the results support the approach of starting new patients on 81 mg, which is what we have been seeing in evolving clinical practice in recent years,” he added.  

Dr. Jones explained that the trial set out to answer the simple but important question about the best dose of aspirin in patients with heart disease.

“Aspirin has been established as an appropriate long-term medication for patients with ischemic heart disease since the 1980s, but we really don’t have any good information on the correct dose.

He noted that the U.S. guidelines suggest any dose in the range of 81 mg to 325 mg daily can be used, whereas the European guidelines recommend 81 mg daily, although this is mainly based on observational data and expert opinion; there is little hard, randomized-trial evidence.

The ADAPTABLE trial randomly assigned 15,076 patients with established heart disease to receive 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin. Before randomization, 96% of those with available information were already taking aspirin, 85% of whom were taking 81 mg.

After a mean follow-up of 26 months, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke – had occurred in 7.28% of the 81-mg group and 7.51% of the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.14).     

The main safety endpoint, hospitalization for major bleeding with an associated blood transfusion, occurred in 0.63% of the 81-mg group and 0.60% of the 325-mg group (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79-1.77).

“The bleeding safety endpoint looked similar, which may be counterintuitive to what may have been expected,” Dr. Jones commented. “However, the safety endpoint was very stringent. We still haven’t analyzed all the less serious ADR [adverse drug event]/bleeding data, but overall, it does appear to be balanced.”

He added: “Most cardiologists probably may not have expected to see much difference in efficacy between these two doses but would maybe have anticipated a lower bleeding rate with the low dose. I was a little surprised to see such a low bleeding rate in the 325-mg group.”

Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching (41.6%) than those assigned to 81 mg (7.1%) and were more likely to discontinue treatment (11.1% vs. 7.0%). This resulted in fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose in the 325-mg group (434 vs. 650 days).

“This was an open-label study, and such studies always suffer from a degree of infidelity to the assigned treatment group,” Dr. Jones said. “In ADAPTABLE, this was unbalanced in that a much greater number of patients switched from 325 mg to 81 mg than the other way round.”   

“But our results do reflect what happens in normal life,” he added. “People behaved in the study like they do in the real world. They sometimes changed their dose and sometimes stopped taking aspirin altogether. So, I think the results are an accurate representation of the real world.”

A sensitivity analysis based on which dose the patient actually reported taking showed a higher risk for death, MI, or stroke in patients who took 81 mg than those who took 325 mg (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43). But as with any postrandomization analysis, this approach has many inherent biases, Dr. Jones cautioned.
 

Innovative study design  

The ADAPTABLE study used an innovative low-cost design, which involved direct communication with the patients themselves.

Using the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), a group of 40 U.S. centers committed to compiling data in a common format, invitations to enroll in the study were sent to eligible patients identified from medical records. Consent and randomization took place on the patient web portal. 

Participants then purchased aspirin at the assigned dose themselves, and all follow-up was done virtually or on the phone, with outcomes ascertained remotely (from patient reports, electronic medical records, and insurance claims) without adjudication.   

“This is a pretty neat way to do clinical research, enabling us to conduct a 15,000-patient trial on a very tight budget,” Dr. Jones commented. 

He estimated that the trial cost around $18 to $19 million. “No industry funder would have sponsored such a study of aspirin, and a typical trial with this many patients conducted in the traditional way would have cost at least 5 or 10 times more,” he said.

“This is the first time this type of study has been done in the U.S. on such a large scale, and it opens up this method for future research.”

He explained that this design, communicating directly with patients, somewhat limits the questions that can be addressed. “As aspirin is purchased over the counter by patients themselves, this is a question that lent itself to be answered in this way.” 

Another innovative design feature was the inclusion of “patient partners,” with one patient nominated by each center to be part of the organization of the trial. “This helped keep the research relevant to what patients care about.

They also helped with the recruitment strategy and communication with participants. I think this is something we need to continue and prioritize in clinical research going forward,” Dr. Jones noted.

‘Pioneering’ trial

Discussants of the study at the ACC presentation congratulated the investigators on conducting such an innovative trial.

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said, “This is really a pioneering large pragmatic trial, and we’re going to need to see more of these over the next few years. The most important legacy from this trial for me is that you did it, and that you showed us many of the promises and some of the pitfalls of these large pragmatic designs.”

Akshay Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, added: “This was an innovative approach to answering an important question for daily clinical practice.”

On the results of the study, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, “Maybe the outcomes were not too surprising, and I certainly endorse your cautious status quo statement about patients staying on the dose that they are on.”

But he suggested that the bleeding safety outcomes were perhaps a little unexpected, being a little lower in the lower-dose group, and he asked whether there was a sensitivity analysis looking at bleeding on a per protocol basis. Dr. Jones answered that this was planned.

Dr. Desai also raised questions about the “unusual bleeding endpoint,” noting that the rates of bleeding were far lower than would be expected, compared with other clinical trials.

Dr. Jones replied that the bleeding endpoint with blood product transfusion was chosen to allow the researchers to accurately identify these events in claims codes. He said the endpoint probably mirrored the GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) severe bleeding classification.

In an editorial accompanying the publication of ADAPTABLE, Colin Baigent, FMedSci, says the study provides proof of principle that large pragmatic randomized trials can be conducted in the United States.

But Dr. Baigent, who is professor of epidemiology and director of the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit at the University of Oxford (England), says that the high degree of switching between dosages that occurred during the trial gives rise to some uncertainty about the results.  

“Because switching was not likely to have been at random, bias arising from this degree of crossover could have obscured a true difference in efficacy or safety (or both), and moreover it is also not possible to conclude that the lack of any significant difference between the two dose groups implies equivalence of the effects of the doses,” he writes.

He suggests that a pilot study may have identified a preference for the 81-mg dose and allowed methods to facilitate equipoise, such as a run-in period with both doses, and only patients adhering being considered for randomization.  

But Dr. Baigent concludes that the ADAPTABLE trial is a “major achievement” in that it paves the way for low-cost randomized trials in the United States, which should allow many more clinical questions to be answered.

The trial was supported by an award from the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute.  Dr. Schuyler Jones reports consultant fees/honoraria from Bayer Healthcare and Janssen and research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Baigent reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and National Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work.
 

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

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, a pillar of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure with below-normal ejection fraction, came suggestively close to showing efficacy for preventing cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients who have just had an MI but have no history of heart failure in a controlled trial with more than 5,600 patients.

Although sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) fell short of producing a significant benefit, it did show good safety that was similar to the study’s comparator treatment, ramipril, an agent from the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor class that is a mainstay of treatment in these patients.

“To say that, with no run-in, sacubitril/valsartan is as well tolerated and as safe as one of the best-studied ACE inhibitors – ramipril – in acutely ill MI patients, is a big statement,” said Marc A. Pfeffer, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. This high level of safety without gradual uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) “should lower barriers” to broader use of the dual-drug formulation for its approved indication in patients with chronic heart failure, especially patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is below normal. In addition, results from the PARADISE-MI trial suggested that “patients seemed to benefit before they develop heart failure. We couldn’t prove that, but we should build on this, and make it easier for patients to use this treatment,” Dr. Pfeffer said during a press briefing following his talk at the sessions.

Preventing heart failures to come

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in acute MI patients within a few days of their event “is perhaps addressing prevention of the heart failure that’s to come,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, designated discussant for the report and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. “Patients who are destined to develop heart failure are beginning their treatment early. The subgroup analyses suggest that it’s the sicker patients who benefited the most,” she said.

But Dr. Pfeffer stressed that “I don’t think this is a subgroup discussion. I would like to pursue this, but that’s up to the sponsor,” Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan.

‘Exceedingly reassuring’ safety

The safety data that Dr. Pfeffer reported “are exceedingly reassuring. We didn’t see a signal of harm, and in some of the exploratory endpoints there was some evidence of benefit, so we need to encourage you to continue,” commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis.

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) trial enrolled 5,669 patients with no history of heart failure within an average of 4 days following an acute MI at 495 sites in 41 countries during 2016-2020, with 8% of enrolled patients from the United States. Patients averaged 64 years of age, about three-quarters were men, about 43% had a history of diabetes, and only 1% were Black; Dr. Pfeffer noted that this is because most patients came from countries with low Black populations. The enrollment criteria required a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 40%, and among the enrolled patients this averaged about 37%.

A 10% nonsignificant relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined first-event rate of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an outpatient visit for heart failure. During a median follow-up of 23 months, this occurred at a rate of 7.4/100 patient years in the ramipril arm and 6.7/100 patient years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, a 10% relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan that was not significant, which meant all other efficacy analyses were exploratory, Dr. Pfeffer stressed.

Several secondary efficacy analyses showed significant benefits from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, including the total number of events that comprised the primary endpoint, with a 21% relative risk reduction associated with sacubitril/valsartan, as well as investigator-reported events. The primary-endpoint benefit from sacubitril/valsartan was also significant in two subgroup analyses: patients aged 65 years or older (roughly half the study cohort), who had a 24% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, and the 88% of patients who received treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention for their acute MI, who had a 19% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients who received ramipril.

The study’s safety data showed nearly identical rates in the two treatment arms for total adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events that led to stopping the study drug, as well as in laboratory measures. The biggest between-treatment differences were a modest excess of hypotension on sacubitril valsartan, 28%, compared with 22% on ramipril, and a modest excess rate of cough on ramipril, 13%, compared with 9% on sacubitril/valsartan.

The added insight the results provide about sacubitril/valsartan comes at a time when U.S. patients continue to struggle to get health insurance coverage for an agent that has been approved for U.S. use in treating heart failure since 2015.

“Our patients do not have access to this important treatment,” declared Dr. Walsh during the press briefing. “The prior authorization process is unbelievable, and some patients have no access unless they pay the full cost on their own. This is an important, real-world problem that we face with this drug.”

PARADISE-MI was sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Pfeffer has received research funding from and is a consultant to Novartis. He is also a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and he holds equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. Dr. Stevenson has received honoraria from LivaNova and has received research support from Abbott. Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, a pillar of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure with below-normal ejection fraction, came suggestively close to showing efficacy for preventing cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients who have just had an MI but have no history of heart failure in a controlled trial with more than 5,600 patients.

Although sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) fell short of producing a significant benefit, it did show good safety that was similar to the study’s comparator treatment, ramipril, an agent from the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor class that is a mainstay of treatment in these patients.

“To say that, with no run-in, sacubitril/valsartan is as well tolerated and as safe as one of the best-studied ACE inhibitors – ramipril – in acutely ill MI patients, is a big statement,” said Marc A. Pfeffer, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. This high level of safety without gradual uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) “should lower barriers” to broader use of the dual-drug formulation for its approved indication in patients with chronic heart failure, especially patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is below normal. In addition, results from the PARADISE-MI trial suggested that “patients seemed to benefit before they develop heart failure. We couldn’t prove that, but we should build on this, and make it easier for patients to use this treatment,” Dr. Pfeffer said during a press briefing following his talk at the sessions.

Preventing heart failures to come

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in acute MI patients within a few days of their event “is perhaps addressing prevention of the heart failure that’s to come,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, designated discussant for the report and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. “Patients who are destined to develop heart failure are beginning their treatment early. The subgroup analyses suggest that it’s the sicker patients who benefited the most,” she said.

But Dr. Pfeffer stressed that “I don’t think this is a subgroup discussion. I would like to pursue this, but that’s up to the sponsor,” Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan.

‘Exceedingly reassuring’ safety

The safety data that Dr. Pfeffer reported “are exceedingly reassuring. We didn’t see a signal of harm, and in some of the exploratory endpoints there was some evidence of benefit, so we need to encourage you to continue,” commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis.

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) trial enrolled 5,669 patients with no history of heart failure within an average of 4 days following an acute MI at 495 sites in 41 countries during 2016-2020, with 8% of enrolled patients from the United States. Patients averaged 64 years of age, about three-quarters were men, about 43% had a history of diabetes, and only 1% were Black; Dr. Pfeffer noted that this is because most patients came from countries with low Black populations. The enrollment criteria required a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 40%, and among the enrolled patients this averaged about 37%.

A 10% nonsignificant relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined first-event rate of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an outpatient visit for heart failure. During a median follow-up of 23 months, this occurred at a rate of 7.4/100 patient years in the ramipril arm and 6.7/100 patient years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, a 10% relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan that was not significant, which meant all other efficacy analyses were exploratory, Dr. Pfeffer stressed.

Several secondary efficacy analyses showed significant benefits from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, including the total number of events that comprised the primary endpoint, with a 21% relative risk reduction associated with sacubitril/valsartan, as well as investigator-reported events. The primary-endpoint benefit from sacubitril/valsartan was also significant in two subgroup analyses: patients aged 65 years or older (roughly half the study cohort), who had a 24% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, and the 88% of patients who received treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention for their acute MI, who had a 19% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients who received ramipril.

The study’s safety data showed nearly identical rates in the two treatment arms for total adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events that led to stopping the study drug, as well as in laboratory measures. The biggest between-treatment differences were a modest excess of hypotension on sacubitril valsartan, 28%, compared with 22% on ramipril, and a modest excess rate of cough on ramipril, 13%, compared with 9% on sacubitril/valsartan.

The added insight the results provide about sacubitril/valsartan comes at a time when U.S. patients continue to struggle to get health insurance coverage for an agent that has been approved for U.S. use in treating heart failure since 2015.

“Our patients do not have access to this important treatment,” declared Dr. Walsh during the press briefing. “The prior authorization process is unbelievable, and some patients have no access unless they pay the full cost on their own. This is an important, real-world problem that we face with this drug.”

PARADISE-MI was sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Pfeffer has received research funding from and is a consultant to Novartis. He is also a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and he holds equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. Dr. Stevenson has received honoraria from LivaNova and has received research support from Abbott. Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, a pillar of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure with below-normal ejection fraction, came suggestively close to showing efficacy for preventing cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients who have just had an MI but have no history of heart failure in a controlled trial with more than 5,600 patients.

Although sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) fell short of producing a significant benefit, it did show good safety that was similar to the study’s comparator treatment, ramipril, an agent from the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor class that is a mainstay of treatment in these patients.

“To say that, with no run-in, sacubitril/valsartan is as well tolerated and as safe as one of the best-studied ACE inhibitors – ramipril – in acutely ill MI patients, is a big statement,” said Marc A. Pfeffer, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. This high level of safety without gradual uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) “should lower barriers” to broader use of the dual-drug formulation for its approved indication in patients with chronic heart failure, especially patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is below normal. In addition, results from the PARADISE-MI trial suggested that “patients seemed to benefit before they develop heart failure. We couldn’t prove that, but we should build on this, and make it easier for patients to use this treatment,” Dr. Pfeffer said during a press briefing following his talk at the sessions.

Preventing heart failures to come

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in acute MI patients within a few days of their event “is perhaps addressing prevention of the heart failure that’s to come,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, designated discussant for the report and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. “Patients who are destined to develop heart failure are beginning their treatment early. The subgroup analyses suggest that it’s the sicker patients who benefited the most,” she said.

But Dr. Pfeffer stressed that “I don’t think this is a subgroup discussion. I would like to pursue this, but that’s up to the sponsor,” Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan.

‘Exceedingly reassuring’ safety

The safety data that Dr. Pfeffer reported “are exceedingly reassuring. We didn’t see a signal of harm, and in some of the exploratory endpoints there was some evidence of benefit, so we need to encourage you to continue,” commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis.

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) trial enrolled 5,669 patients with no history of heart failure within an average of 4 days following an acute MI at 495 sites in 41 countries during 2016-2020, with 8% of enrolled patients from the United States. Patients averaged 64 years of age, about three-quarters were men, about 43% had a history of diabetes, and only 1% were Black; Dr. Pfeffer noted that this is because most patients came from countries with low Black populations. The enrollment criteria required a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 40%, and among the enrolled patients this averaged about 37%.

A 10% nonsignificant relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined first-event rate of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an outpatient visit for heart failure. During a median follow-up of 23 months, this occurred at a rate of 7.4/100 patient years in the ramipril arm and 6.7/100 patient years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, a 10% relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan that was not significant, which meant all other efficacy analyses were exploratory, Dr. Pfeffer stressed.

Several secondary efficacy analyses showed significant benefits from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, including the total number of events that comprised the primary endpoint, with a 21% relative risk reduction associated with sacubitril/valsartan, as well as investigator-reported events. The primary-endpoint benefit from sacubitril/valsartan was also significant in two subgroup analyses: patients aged 65 years or older (roughly half the study cohort), who had a 24% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, and the 88% of patients who received treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention for their acute MI, who had a 19% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients who received ramipril.

The study’s safety data showed nearly identical rates in the two treatment arms for total adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events that led to stopping the study drug, as well as in laboratory measures. The biggest between-treatment differences were a modest excess of hypotension on sacubitril valsartan, 28%, compared with 22% on ramipril, and a modest excess rate of cough on ramipril, 13%, compared with 9% on sacubitril/valsartan.

The added insight the results provide about sacubitril/valsartan comes at a time when U.S. patients continue to struggle to get health insurance coverage for an agent that has been approved for U.S. use in treating heart failure since 2015.

“Our patients do not have access to this important treatment,” declared Dr. Walsh during the press briefing. “The prior authorization process is unbelievable, and some patients have no access unless they pay the full cost on their own. This is an important, real-world problem that we face with this drug.”

PARADISE-MI was sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Pfeffer has received research funding from and is a consultant to Novartis. He is also a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and he holds equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. Dr. Stevenson has received honoraria from LivaNova and has received research support from Abbott. Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Primary care physicians are more likely to write a prescription for statins for their patients at risk for cardiovascular adverse events in the morning than in the afternoon, new research suggests.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In an observational cohort study, researchers from the nudge unit, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that patients who had the first appointments of the day were most likely to have statins prescribed for them, and that this likelihood decreased as the day went on.

The study was published online May 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

“Physicians are faced with decision fatigue, where they are seeing 20 patients in a day and may not have the mental bandwidth or cognitive bandwidth to fully think through every decision for every patient and to make all the appropriate decisions all of the time,” lead author Allison J. Hare, medical student and clinical informatics fellow in the nudge unit, said in an interview.

The Penn Medicine nudge unit attempts to better align clinician decision-making with current standards in best practices for the provision of various therapies, Ms. Hare explained.

“As we see more and more best-practice guidelines come out, we also see that there is a gap in the intention to treat and actual provision of these therapies,” she said. “There are also increasing expectations for clinicians to provide all of these different evidence-backed therapies. It can be hard to keep up with all these guidelines, especially when you are expected to take care of more and more patients, more and more efficiently.”

Guideline-directed statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, yet 50% of statin-eligible patients have not been prescribed one.

“In our prior work at the nudge unit, we observed that rates of preventive care, including flu vaccination and cancer screening, declined as the clinic day progressed. We wanted to see if this occurred with statin scripts,” Ms. Hare said.

The researchers obtained data from 28 Penn Medicine primary care practices that included 10,757 patients at risk for heart disease for the period from March 2019 to February 2020.

Their mean age was 66.0 years (standard deviation, 10.5 years), 5,072 (47.2%) were female, and 7,071 (65.7%) were White. Patient characteristics were similar between morning and afternoon appointments.

All patients had clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, or LDL cholesterol of at least 190 mg/dL, conditions which qualified them for statins based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

The appointment times for each patient were broken down into hour blocks, ranging from the 8:00 a.m. hour to the 4:00 p.m. hour, which bookend open times in most practices.

Overall, statins were prescribed in 36% (n = 3,864) of visits.

The data showed a clear decline in statin prescribing as the day went on. For example, compared with patients who came in at 8:00 a.m. (the reference group), patients who came in at 9:00 a.m. were 12% less likely to get a prescription.

Patients coming in for noon appointments were 37% less likely to get a statin prescription, which made them the least likely to get a script. After the noon visits, there was a slight increase, but the likelihood of a statin prescription remained 27% less likely or worse for the rest of the day.

“In the context of the myriad tasks that clinicians are faced with doing for a single patient, and then also within the context of seeing 20 patients in 15-minute increments, it is easy to see how certain things fall through the cracks,” Ms. Hare said. “It’s impossible for any clinician to remember every single little thing for their patient every single time, so if we can augment the clinician’s ability to make those appropriate decisions with electronic tools, we can narrow that gap a little bit.”
 

Why the variability?

“The nudge unit uses prompts to ask the physician about prescribing statins. The question is, what is causing the variability in statin prescriptions?” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University women’s heart program, said in an interview.

“Is it fatigue, lack of familiarity of guidelines, or is this due to the volume of patients and lack of time to discuss the therapy and make a shared decision with their patient? The answer to these questions was not part of the study,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “It would be interesting to know the thoughts of the physicians who were studied after they were informed of the results. Also, having a nudge to write the prescription will increase the prescriptions of statins, but will patients take the medication?”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Hare and Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians are more likely to write a prescription for statins for their patients at risk for cardiovascular adverse events in the morning than in the afternoon, new research suggests.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In an observational cohort study, researchers from the nudge unit, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that patients who had the first appointments of the day were most likely to have statins prescribed for them, and that this likelihood decreased as the day went on.

The study was published online May 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

“Physicians are faced with decision fatigue, where they are seeing 20 patients in a day and may not have the mental bandwidth or cognitive bandwidth to fully think through every decision for every patient and to make all the appropriate decisions all of the time,” lead author Allison J. Hare, medical student and clinical informatics fellow in the nudge unit, said in an interview.

The Penn Medicine nudge unit attempts to better align clinician decision-making with current standards in best practices for the provision of various therapies, Ms. Hare explained.

“As we see more and more best-practice guidelines come out, we also see that there is a gap in the intention to treat and actual provision of these therapies,” she said. “There are also increasing expectations for clinicians to provide all of these different evidence-backed therapies. It can be hard to keep up with all these guidelines, especially when you are expected to take care of more and more patients, more and more efficiently.”

Guideline-directed statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, yet 50% of statin-eligible patients have not been prescribed one.

“In our prior work at the nudge unit, we observed that rates of preventive care, including flu vaccination and cancer screening, declined as the clinic day progressed. We wanted to see if this occurred with statin scripts,” Ms. Hare said.

The researchers obtained data from 28 Penn Medicine primary care practices that included 10,757 patients at risk for heart disease for the period from March 2019 to February 2020.

Their mean age was 66.0 years (standard deviation, 10.5 years), 5,072 (47.2%) were female, and 7,071 (65.7%) were White. Patient characteristics were similar between morning and afternoon appointments.

All patients had clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, or LDL cholesterol of at least 190 mg/dL, conditions which qualified them for statins based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

The appointment times for each patient were broken down into hour blocks, ranging from the 8:00 a.m. hour to the 4:00 p.m. hour, which bookend open times in most practices.

Overall, statins were prescribed in 36% (n = 3,864) of visits.

The data showed a clear decline in statin prescribing as the day went on. For example, compared with patients who came in at 8:00 a.m. (the reference group), patients who came in at 9:00 a.m. were 12% less likely to get a prescription.

Patients coming in for noon appointments were 37% less likely to get a statin prescription, which made them the least likely to get a script. After the noon visits, there was a slight increase, but the likelihood of a statin prescription remained 27% less likely or worse for the rest of the day.

“In the context of the myriad tasks that clinicians are faced with doing for a single patient, and then also within the context of seeing 20 patients in 15-minute increments, it is easy to see how certain things fall through the cracks,” Ms. Hare said. “It’s impossible for any clinician to remember every single little thing for their patient every single time, so if we can augment the clinician’s ability to make those appropriate decisions with electronic tools, we can narrow that gap a little bit.”
 

Why the variability?

“The nudge unit uses prompts to ask the physician about prescribing statins. The question is, what is causing the variability in statin prescriptions?” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University women’s heart program, said in an interview.

“Is it fatigue, lack of familiarity of guidelines, or is this due to the volume of patients and lack of time to discuss the therapy and make a shared decision with their patient? The answer to these questions was not part of the study,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “It would be interesting to know the thoughts of the physicians who were studied after they were informed of the results. Also, having a nudge to write the prescription will increase the prescriptions of statins, but will patients take the medication?”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Hare and Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians are more likely to write a prescription for statins for their patients at risk for cardiovascular adverse events in the morning than in the afternoon, new research suggests.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In an observational cohort study, researchers from the nudge unit, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, found that patients who had the first appointments of the day were most likely to have statins prescribed for them, and that this likelihood decreased as the day went on.

The study was published online May 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

“Physicians are faced with decision fatigue, where they are seeing 20 patients in a day and may not have the mental bandwidth or cognitive bandwidth to fully think through every decision for every patient and to make all the appropriate decisions all of the time,” lead author Allison J. Hare, medical student and clinical informatics fellow in the nudge unit, said in an interview.

The Penn Medicine nudge unit attempts to better align clinician decision-making with current standards in best practices for the provision of various therapies, Ms. Hare explained.

“As we see more and more best-practice guidelines come out, we also see that there is a gap in the intention to treat and actual provision of these therapies,” she said. “There are also increasing expectations for clinicians to provide all of these different evidence-backed therapies. It can be hard to keep up with all these guidelines, especially when you are expected to take care of more and more patients, more and more efficiently.”

Guideline-directed statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, yet 50% of statin-eligible patients have not been prescribed one.

“In our prior work at the nudge unit, we observed that rates of preventive care, including flu vaccination and cancer screening, declined as the clinic day progressed. We wanted to see if this occurred with statin scripts,” Ms. Hare said.

The researchers obtained data from 28 Penn Medicine primary care practices that included 10,757 patients at risk for heart disease for the period from March 2019 to February 2020.

Their mean age was 66.0 years (standard deviation, 10.5 years), 5,072 (47.2%) were female, and 7,071 (65.7%) were White. Patient characteristics were similar between morning and afternoon appointments.

All patients had clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, or LDL cholesterol of at least 190 mg/dL, conditions which qualified them for statins based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

The appointment times for each patient were broken down into hour blocks, ranging from the 8:00 a.m. hour to the 4:00 p.m. hour, which bookend open times in most practices.

Overall, statins were prescribed in 36% (n = 3,864) of visits.

The data showed a clear decline in statin prescribing as the day went on. For example, compared with patients who came in at 8:00 a.m. (the reference group), patients who came in at 9:00 a.m. were 12% less likely to get a prescription.

Patients coming in for noon appointments were 37% less likely to get a statin prescription, which made them the least likely to get a script. After the noon visits, there was a slight increase, but the likelihood of a statin prescription remained 27% less likely or worse for the rest of the day.

“In the context of the myriad tasks that clinicians are faced with doing for a single patient, and then also within the context of seeing 20 patients in 15-minute increments, it is easy to see how certain things fall through the cracks,” Ms. Hare said. “It’s impossible for any clinician to remember every single little thing for their patient every single time, so if we can augment the clinician’s ability to make those appropriate decisions with electronic tools, we can narrow that gap a little bit.”
 

Why the variability?

“The nudge unit uses prompts to ask the physician about prescribing statins. The question is, what is causing the variability in statin prescriptions?” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University women’s heart program, said in an interview.

“Is it fatigue, lack of familiarity of guidelines, or is this due to the volume of patients and lack of time to discuss the therapy and make a shared decision with their patient? The answer to these questions was not part of the study,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “It would be interesting to know the thoughts of the physicians who were studied after they were informed of the results. Also, having a nudge to write the prescription will increase the prescriptions of statins, but will patients take the medication?”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Hare and Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vegetarians have more favorable levels of a number of biomarkers including cardiovascular-linked ones – total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A and B – than meat eaters, according to results of the largest study of its kind to date.

Results of the cross-sectional, observational study of 178,000 participants were presented as an electronic poster at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity by Jirapitcha Boonpor of the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“We found that the health benefits of becoming a vegetarian were independent of adiposity and other sociodemographic and lifestyle-related confounding factors,” senior author Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, also from the University of Glasgow, said in an interview.

Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations for vegetarians were 21% and 16.4% lower than in meat eaters. But some biomarkers considered beneficial – including vitamin D concentrations – were lower in vegetarians, while some considered unhealthy – including triglycerides and cystatin-C levels – were higher.  

Vegetarian diets have recently become much more popular, but there is insufficient information about the health benefits. Prior reports of associations between biomarkers and a vegetarian diet were unclear, including evidence of any metabolic benefits, noted Dr. Celis-Morales.

Importantly, participants in the study had followed a vegetarian or meat-eater diet for at least 5 years before their biomarkers in blood and urine were assessed.

“If you modify your diet, then, 2 weeks later, you can see changes in some metabolic markers, but changes in markers of cardiovascular disease will take 5-10 years,” he explained.
 

No single biomarker can assess health

Asked to comment on the findings, John C. Mathers, PhD, noted that they clearly confirm the importance of not reading any biomarker result in isolation.

Health is complex and individual markers tell you just part of the story,” said Dr. Mathers of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle (England) University.

He says a vegetarian diet can be nourishing but cautioned that “just because someone excludes meat from their diet does not mean necessarily that they will be eating a healthy diet.”

“Some of the biomarker differences seen in this work – such as the lower concentrations of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, GGT [gamma-glutamyl transferase], and ALT [alanine transaminase] – are indicators that the vegetarians were healthier than the meat eaters. However, other differences were less encouraging, including the lower concentrations of vitamin D and higher concentrations of triglycerides and cystatin-C.”

Also reflecting on the results, Jose Lara Gallegos, PhD, senior lecturer in human nutrition at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said they support previous evidence from large studies such as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), which showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of heart disease.

“A vegetarian diet might also be associated with lower risk for liver diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Gallegos said, but added that some levels of biomarkers considered to be “healthy” were lower in the vegetarians, and it is important to remember that strictly restricted diets might be associated with potential risks of nutritional inadequacies.

“Other, less restrictive dietary patterns, such as a Mediterranean diet, are also associated with ... health benefits,” he observed.
 

Large data sample from the UK Biobank study

“Specifically, we wanted to know if vegetarians were healthier because they are generally leaner and lead healthier lives, or whether their diet specifically was responsible for their improved metabolic and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Celis-Morales explained.

Data were included from 177,723 healthy participants from the UK Biobank study who were aged 37-73 years and had reported no major dietary changes over the last 5 years. In total, 4,111 participants were self-reported vegetarians who followed a diet without red meat, poultry, or fish, and 166,516 participants were meat eaters.

Nineteen biomarkers related to diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and liver and renal function were included, and the associations between vegetarian diet and biomarkers, compared with meat eaters, were examined.

To minimize confounding, the findings were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, education, ethnicity, smoking, total sedentary time, type of physical activity, alcohol intake, body mass index, and waist circumference.

Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly lower concentrations of 14 biomarkers, including total cholesterol (21% lower); LDL (16% lower); lipoprotein A (1% lower), lipoprotein B (4% lower), and liver function markers (GGT: 354% lower, and ALT: 153% lower), IGF-1 (134% lower), urate (122% lower), total protein (29% lower), creatinine (607% lower), and C-reactive protein (10% lower).

However, the researchers found that, compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly higher concentrations of some unhealthy biomarkers, including triglycerides (15% higher) and cystatin-C (4% higher), and lower levels of some beneficial biomarkers including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (5% lower), vitamin D (635% lower), and calcium (0.7% lower).

No associations were found for hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, and aminotransferase.

“Some biomarkers, for example urate, were very low in vegetarians, and this served to verify our results because we expected meat eaters to have higher levels of urate,” remarked Dr. Celis-Morales.
 

Diet commitment and cardiovascular outcomes

Many people, whether vegetarians or meat-eaters, follow short-term diets, for example, the Atkins or the 5:2 diet, and often lack continuity switching from one diet to the next, or back to regular eating.  

“They are healthy, but they do not commit for long enough to make a difference to metabolic markers or potentially long-term health. In contrast, vegetarians are usually fully committed but the reasons behind this commitment might be a concern for the environment or animal welfare, for example,” Dr. Celis-Morales pointed out.

However, he added that many vegetarians replace the meat in their diet with unhealthy alternatives. “They often eat too much pasta or potatoes, or other high-energy food with low nutritional value.”

Having identified metabolic markers specific to long-term vegetarian diets, Dr. Celis-Morales wanted to know what happens to vegetarians’ long-term cardiovascular health. He analyzed and published these outcomes in a separate study published in December 2020.

“Over 9 years of follow-up, we have found that vegetarians have a lower risk in terms of myocardial infarction in the long-term, as well as other cardiovascular disease,” he reported.

Asked whether there was an optimum age or time in life to become a vegetarian to improve health, Dr. Celis-Morales explained that the healthier you are, the less likely you will reap the health benefits of dietary changes – for example to being a vegetarian.

“It is more likely that those people who have unhealthy lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking, and high consumption of high-energy foods or processed meat are more likely to see positive health effects,” he said.  

Lifestyle changes to improve cardiovascular outcomes are usually more likely to be required at 40 or 50 years old than at younger ages. He also noted that metabolic markers tend to show clear improvement at around 3 months after adopting a particular diet but improvements in disease outcomes take a lot longer to become evident.

Dr. Celis-Morales and his team are currently conducting a further analysis to understand if the vegetarian diet is also associated with a lower risk of cancer, depression, and dementia, compared with meat-eaters.

Dr. Celis-Morales, Dr. Mathers, and Dr. Gallegos have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vegetarians have more favorable levels of a number of biomarkers including cardiovascular-linked ones – total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A and B – than meat eaters, according to results of the largest study of its kind to date.

Results of the cross-sectional, observational study of 178,000 participants were presented as an electronic poster at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity by Jirapitcha Boonpor of the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“We found that the health benefits of becoming a vegetarian were independent of adiposity and other sociodemographic and lifestyle-related confounding factors,” senior author Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, also from the University of Glasgow, said in an interview.

Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations for vegetarians were 21% and 16.4% lower than in meat eaters. But some biomarkers considered beneficial – including vitamin D concentrations – were lower in vegetarians, while some considered unhealthy – including triglycerides and cystatin-C levels – were higher.  

Vegetarian diets have recently become much more popular, but there is insufficient information about the health benefits. Prior reports of associations between biomarkers and a vegetarian diet were unclear, including evidence of any metabolic benefits, noted Dr. Celis-Morales.

Importantly, participants in the study had followed a vegetarian or meat-eater diet for at least 5 years before their biomarkers in blood and urine were assessed.

“If you modify your diet, then, 2 weeks later, you can see changes in some metabolic markers, but changes in markers of cardiovascular disease will take 5-10 years,” he explained.
 

No single biomarker can assess health

Asked to comment on the findings, John C. Mathers, PhD, noted that they clearly confirm the importance of not reading any biomarker result in isolation.

Health is complex and individual markers tell you just part of the story,” said Dr. Mathers of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle (England) University.

He says a vegetarian diet can be nourishing but cautioned that “just because someone excludes meat from their diet does not mean necessarily that they will be eating a healthy diet.”

“Some of the biomarker differences seen in this work – such as the lower concentrations of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, GGT [gamma-glutamyl transferase], and ALT [alanine transaminase] – are indicators that the vegetarians were healthier than the meat eaters. However, other differences were less encouraging, including the lower concentrations of vitamin D and higher concentrations of triglycerides and cystatin-C.”

Also reflecting on the results, Jose Lara Gallegos, PhD, senior lecturer in human nutrition at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said they support previous evidence from large studies such as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), which showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of heart disease.

“A vegetarian diet might also be associated with lower risk for liver diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Gallegos said, but added that some levels of biomarkers considered to be “healthy” were lower in the vegetarians, and it is important to remember that strictly restricted diets might be associated with potential risks of nutritional inadequacies.

“Other, less restrictive dietary patterns, such as a Mediterranean diet, are also associated with ... health benefits,” he observed.
 

Large data sample from the UK Biobank study

“Specifically, we wanted to know if vegetarians were healthier because they are generally leaner and lead healthier lives, or whether their diet specifically was responsible for their improved metabolic and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Celis-Morales explained.

Data were included from 177,723 healthy participants from the UK Biobank study who were aged 37-73 years and had reported no major dietary changes over the last 5 years. In total, 4,111 participants were self-reported vegetarians who followed a diet without red meat, poultry, or fish, and 166,516 participants were meat eaters.

Nineteen biomarkers related to diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and liver and renal function were included, and the associations between vegetarian diet and biomarkers, compared with meat eaters, were examined.

To minimize confounding, the findings were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, education, ethnicity, smoking, total sedentary time, type of physical activity, alcohol intake, body mass index, and waist circumference.

Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly lower concentrations of 14 biomarkers, including total cholesterol (21% lower); LDL (16% lower); lipoprotein A (1% lower), lipoprotein B (4% lower), and liver function markers (GGT: 354% lower, and ALT: 153% lower), IGF-1 (134% lower), urate (122% lower), total protein (29% lower), creatinine (607% lower), and C-reactive protein (10% lower).

However, the researchers found that, compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly higher concentrations of some unhealthy biomarkers, including triglycerides (15% higher) and cystatin-C (4% higher), and lower levels of some beneficial biomarkers including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (5% lower), vitamin D (635% lower), and calcium (0.7% lower).

No associations were found for hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, and aminotransferase.

“Some biomarkers, for example urate, were very low in vegetarians, and this served to verify our results because we expected meat eaters to have higher levels of urate,” remarked Dr. Celis-Morales.
 

Diet commitment and cardiovascular outcomes

Many people, whether vegetarians or meat-eaters, follow short-term diets, for example, the Atkins or the 5:2 diet, and often lack continuity switching from one diet to the next, or back to regular eating.  

“They are healthy, but they do not commit for long enough to make a difference to metabolic markers or potentially long-term health. In contrast, vegetarians are usually fully committed but the reasons behind this commitment might be a concern for the environment or animal welfare, for example,” Dr. Celis-Morales pointed out.

However, he added that many vegetarians replace the meat in their diet with unhealthy alternatives. “They often eat too much pasta or potatoes, or other high-energy food with low nutritional value.”

Having identified metabolic markers specific to long-term vegetarian diets, Dr. Celis-Morales wanted to know what happens to vegetarians’ long-term cardiovascular health. He analyzed and published these outcomes in a separate study published in December 2020.

“Over 9 years of follow-up, we have found that vegetarians have a lower risk in terms of myocardial infarction in the long-term, as well as other cardiovascular disease,” he reported.

Asked whether there was an optimum age or time in life to become a vegetarian to improve health, Dr. Celis-Morales explained that the healthier you are, the less likely you will reap the health benefits of dietary changes – for example to being a vegetarian.

“It is more likely that those people who have unhealthy lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking, and high consumption of high-energy foods or processed meat are more likely to see positive health effects,” he said.  

Lifestyle changes to improve cardiovascular outcomes are usually more likely to be required at 40 or 50 years old than at younger ages. He also noted that metabolic markers tend to show clear improvement at around 3 months after adopting a particular diet but improvements in disease outcomes take a lot longer to become evident.

Dr. Celis-Morales and his team are currently conducting a further analysis to understand if the vegetarian diet is also associated with a lower risk of cancer, depression, and dementia, compared with meat-eaters.

Dr. Celis-Morales, Dr. Mathers, and Dr. Gallegos have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vegetarians have more favorable levels of a number of biomarkers including cardiovascular-linked ones – total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A and B – than meat eaters, according to results of the largest study of its kind to date.

Results of the cross-sectional, observational study of 178,000 participants were presented as an electronic poster at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity by Jirapitcha Boonpor of the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“We found that the health benefits of becoming a vegetarian were independent of adiposity and other sociodemographic and lifestyle-related confounding factors,” senior author Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, also from the University of Glasgow, said in an interview.

Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations for vegetarians were 21% and 16.4% lower than in meat eaters. But some biomarkers considered beneficial – including vitamin D concentrations – were lower in vegetarians, while some considered unhealthy – including triglycerides and cystatin-C levels – were higher.  

Vegetarian diets have recently become much more popular, but there is insufficient information about the health benefits. Prior reports of associations between biomarkers and a vegetarian diet were unclear, including evidence of any metabolic benefits, noted Dr. Celis-Morales.

Importantly, participants in the study had followed a vegetarian or meat-eater diet for at least 5 years before their biomarkers in blood and urine were assessed.

“If you modify your diet, then, 2 weeks later, you can see changes in some metabolic markers, but changes in markers of cardiovascular disease will take 5-10 years,” he explained.
 

No single biomarker can assess health

Asked to comment on the findings, John C. Mathers, PhD, noted that they clearly confirm the importance of not reading any biomarker result in isolation.

Health is complex and individual markers tell you just part of the story,” said Dr. Mathers of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle (England) University.

He says a vegetarian diet can be nourishing but cautioned that “just because someone excludes meat from their diet does not mean necessarily that they will be eating a healthy diet.”

“Some of the biomarker differences seen in this work – such as the lower concentrations of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, GGT [gamma-glutamyl transferase], and ALT [alanine transaminase] – are indicators that the vegetarians were healthier than the meat eaters. However, other differences were less encouraging, including the lower concentrations of vitamin D and higher concentrations of triglycerides and cystatin-C.”

Also reflecting on the results, Jose Lara Gallegos, PhD, senior lecturer in human nutrition at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said they support previous evidence from large studies such as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), which showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of heart disease.

“A vegetarian diet might also be associated with lower risk for liver diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Gallegos said, but added that some levels of biomarkers considered to be “healthy” were lower in the vegetarians, and it is important to remember that strictly restricted diets might be associated with potential risks of nutritional inadequacies.

“Other, less restrictive dietary patterns, such as a Mediterranean diet, are also associated with ... health benefits,” he observed.
 

Large data sample from the UK Biobank study

“Specifically, we wanted to know if vegetarians were healthier because they are generally leaner and lead healthier lives, or whether their diet specifically was responsible for their improved metabolic and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Celis-Morales explained.

Data were included from 177,723 healthy participants from the UK Biobank study who were aged 37-73 years and had reported no major dietary changes over the last 5 years. In total, 4,111 participants were self-reported vegetarians who followed a diet without red meat, poultry, or fish, and 166,516 participants were meat eaters.

Nineteen biomarkers related to diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and liver and renal function were included, and the associations between vegetarian diet and biomarkers, compared with meat eaters, were examined.

To minimize confounding, the findings were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, education, ethnicity, smoking, total sedentary time, type of physical activity, alcohol intake, body mass index, and waist circumference.

Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly lower concentrations of 14 biomarkers, including total cholesterol (21% lower); LDL (16% lower); lipoprotein A (1% lower), lipoprotein B (4% lower), and liver function markers (GGT: 354% lower, and ALT: 153% lower), IGF-1 (134% lower), urate (122% lower), total protein (29% lower), creatinine (607% lower), and C-reactive protein (10% lower).

However, the researchers found that, compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly higher concentrations of some unhealthy biomarkers, including triglycerides (15% higher) and cystatin-C (4% higher), and lower levels of some beneficial biomarkers including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (5% lower), vitamin D (635% lower), and calcium (0.7% lower).

No associations were found for hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, and aminotransferase.

“Some biomarkers, for example urate, were very low in vegetarians, and this served to verify our results because we expected meat eaters to have higher levels of urate,” remarked Dr. Celis-Morales.
 

Diet commitment and cardiovascular outcomes

Many people, whether vegetarians or meat-eaters, follow short-term diets, for example, the Atkins or the 5:2 diet, and often lack continuity switching from one diet to the next, or back to regular eating.  

“They are healthy, but they do not commit for long enough to make a difference to metabolic markers or potentially long-term health. In contrast, vegetarians are usually fully committed but the reasons behind this commitment might be a concern for the environment or animal welfare, for example,” Dr. Celis-Morales pointed out.

However, he added that many vegetarians replace the meat in their diet with unhealthy alternatives. “They often eat too much pasta or potatoes, or other high-energy food with low nutritional value.”

Having identified metabolic markers specific to long-term vegetarian diets, Dr. Celis-Morales wanted to know what happens to vegetarians’ long-term cardiovascular health. He analyzed and published these outcomes in a separate study published in December 2020.

“Over 9 years of follow-up, we have found that vegetarians have a lower risk in terms of myocardial infarction in the long-term, as well as other cardiovascular disease,” he reported.

Asked whether there was an optimum age or time in life to become a vegetarian to improve health, Dr. Celis-Morales explained that the healthier you are, the less likely you will reap the health benefits of dietary changes – for example to being a vegetarian.

“It is more likely that those people who have unhealthy lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking, and high consumption of high-energy foods or processed meat are more likely to see positive health effects,” he said.  

Lifestyle changes to improve cardiovascular outcomes are usually more likely to be required at 40 or 50 years old than at younger ages. He also noted that metabolic markers tend to show clear improvement at around 3 months after adopting a particular diet but improvements in disease outcomes take a lot longer to become evident.

Dr. Celis-Morales and his team are currently conducting a further analysis to understand if the vegetarian diet is also associated with a lower risk of cancer, depression, and dementia, compared with meat-eaters.

Dr. Celis-Morales, Dr. Mathers, and Dr. Gallegos have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Cardiology pulled off an impressive all-virtual meeting in March 2020, less than 3 weeks after canceling its in-person event and just 2 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency.

Optimistic plans for the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology (ACC 2021) to be a March hybrid affair in Atlanta pivoted not once, but twice, as the pandemic evolved, with the date pushed back 2 full months, to May 15-17, and the format revised to fully virtual.

“While this meeting is being delivered virtually, I think you’ll see there have been benefits in the time to plan and also the lessons that ACC has learned in virtual education over the past year. This has come together to really create a robust educational and scientific agenda,” ACC 2021 chair Pamela B. Morris, MD, said in a press conference focused on the upcoming meeting.

Over the 3 days, there will be more than 200 education sessions, 10 guideline-specific sessions, and 11 learning pathways that include core areas, but also special topics, such as COVID-19 and the emerging cardio-obstetrics subspecialty.

The meeting will be delivered through a new virtual education program built to optimize real-time interaction between faculty members and attendees, she said. A dedicated portal on the platform will allow attendees to interact virtually, for example, with presenters of the nearly 3,000 ePosters and 420 moderated posters.

For those suffering from Zoom fatigue, the increasingly popular Heart2Heart stage talks have also been converted to podcasts, which cover topics like gender equity in cardiology, the evolving role of advanced practice professionals, and “one of my favorites: art as a tool for healing,” said Dr. Morris, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Those sessions are really not to be missed.”

Reconnecting is an underlying theme of the meeting but the great divider will not be ignored. COVID-19 will be the focus of two 90-minute Intensive Sessions on Saturday, May 15, the first kicking off at 10:30 a.m. ET, with the Bishop Keynote lecture on bringing health equity to the frontline of cardiovascular care, followed by lessons learned during the pandemic, how to conduct clinical trials, and vaccine development.

The second session, set for 12:15 p.m., continues the “silver linings” theme, with case presentations on advances in telehealth, myocardial involvement, and thrombosis in COVID. For those wanting more, 18 abstracts are on tap in a 2-hour Spotlight on Special Topics session beginning at 2:30 p.m.

Asked about the pandemic’s effect on bringing science to fruition this past year, Dr. Morris said there’s no question it’s slowed some of the progress the cardiology community had made but, like clinical practice, “we’ve also surmounted many of those obstacles.”

“I think research has rebounded,” she said. “Just in terms of the number of abstracts and the quality of abstracts that were submitted this year, I don’t think there’s any question that we are right on par with previous years.”

Indeed, 5,258 abstracts from 76 countries were submitted, with more than 3,400 chosen for oral and poster presentation, including 25 late-breaking clinical trials to be presented in five sessions.

The late-breaking presentations and discussions will be prerecorded but speakers and panelists have been invited to be present during the streaming to answer live any questions that may arise in the chat box, ACC 2021 vice chair Douglas Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
 

Late-breaking clinical trials

The Joint ACC/JACC Late-Breaking Clinical Trials I (Saturday, May 15, 9:00 a.m.–-10:00 a.m.) kicks off with PARADISE-MI, the first head-to-head comparison of an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and an ACE inhibitor in patients with reduced ejection fractions (EFs) after MI but no history of heart failure (HF), studying 200 mg sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) versus 5 mg of ramipril, both twice daily, in 5,669 patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan was initially approved for HF with reduced EF and added a new indication to treat some HF patients with preserved EF. Novartis, however, recently told investors that although numerical trends consistently favored the ARNI over the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the phase 3 study failed to meet the primary endpoint for efficacy superiority of reducing the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death and HF events after an acute MI.

Second up is ADAPTABLE, which looks to close a surprising evidence gap over whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily is the optimal dose of the ubiquitously prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention in high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic CV disease.

The open-label, randomized study will look at efficacy and major bleeding over roughly 4 years in 15,000 patients within PCORnet, the National Patient-centered Clinical Research Network, a partnership of clinical research, health plan research, and patient-powered networks created to streamline patient-reported outcomes research.

“This study will not only give important clinical information for us, practically speaking, whether we should prescribe lower- or higher-dose aspirin, but it may also serve as a template for future pragmatic clinical trial design in the real world,” Dr. Drachman said during the press conference.

Up next is the 4,812-patient Canadian LAAOS III, the largest trial to examine the efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) already undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome is the first occurrence of stroke or systemic arterial embolism over an average follow-up of 4 years.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been shown to reduce stroke in AFib patients at high-risk of bleeding on systemic anticoagulation. But these devices can be expensive and studies haven’t included patients who also have valvular heart disease, a group that actually comprises more than half of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who also have AFib, he noted.

At the same time, surgical LAA closure studies have been small and have had very mixed results. “There isn’t a large-scale rigorous assessment out there for these patients undergoing surgery, so I think this is going to be fascinating to see,” Dr. Drachman said.

The session closes with ATLANTIS, which looks to shed some light on the role of anticoagulation therapy in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI). POPular TAVI, presented at ACC 2020, showed aspirin alone was the preferred antithrombotic therapy over aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) in patients not on oral anticoagulants, but the optimal anticoagulation regimen remains unsettled.

The French open-label, 1,510-patient ATLANTIS trial examined whether the novel oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) is superior in preventing CV events after TAVR, compared with antiplatelet therapy in patients without an indication for anticoagulation and compared with vitamin K antagonists in those receiving anticoagulants.

An ATLANTIS 4D CT substudy of valve thrombosis is also slated for Saturday’s Featured Clinical Research 1 session at 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m..
 

Sunday LBCTs

Dr. Drachman highlighted a series of other late-breaking studies, including the global DARE-19 trial testing the diabetes and HF drug dapagliflozin (Farxiga) given with local standard-of-care therapy for 30 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CV, metabolic, or renal risk factors.

Although sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been white-hot of late, top-line results reported last month show dapagliflozin failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoints of reducing organ dysfunction and all-cause mortality and for improving recovery. Details will be presented in the Joint ACC/JAMA Late-Breaking Clinical Trials II (Sunday, May 16, 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.).

Two trials, FLOWER-MI and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, were singled out in the Joint ACC/New England Journal of Medicine Late-Breaking Clinical Trials III (Sunday, May 16, 10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.). FLOWER-MI examines whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) is better than angiography to guide complete multivessel revascularization in ST-elevation MI patients with at least 50% stenosis in at least one nonculprit lesion requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies have shown the superiority of FFR-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions, compared with culprit lesion treatment-only, but this is the first time FFR- and angiography-guided PCI have been compared in STEMI patients.

RADIANCE-HTN TRIO already tipped its hand, with top-line results reported in late 2020 showing that the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of greater reduction in daytime blood pressure over 2 months with the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation system, compared with a sham procedure, in 136 patients with resistant hypertension, importantly, after being given a single pill containing a calcium channel blocker, angiotensin II receptor blocker, and diuretic.

Renal denervation for hypertension has been making something of a comeback, with the 2018 RADIANCE-HTN SOLO reporting better ambulatory blood pressure control with the Paradise system than with a sham procedure in the absence of antihypertensive agents. The device has been granted breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertensive patients who are unable to sufficiently respond to or are intolerant of antihypertensive therapy.
 

Monday LBCTs

In the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials IV session (Monday, May 17, 8 a.m.–9:30 a.m.), Drachman called out a secondary analysis from GALATIC-HF looking at the impact of EF on the therapeutic effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. In last year’s primary analysis, the selective cardiac myosin activator produced a modest but significant reduction in HF events or CV death in 8,232 patients with HF and an EF of 35% or less.

Rounding out the list is the Canadian CAPITAL CHILL study of moderate versus mild therapeutic hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, to be presented in the final Late-Breaking Clinical Trials V session (Monday, May 17, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.).

The double-blind trial sought to determine whether neurologic outcomes at 6 months are improved by targeting a core temperature of 31 ˚C versus 34 ˚C after the return of spontaneous circulation in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“For me, I think this could really change practice and has personal relevance from experience with cardiac arrest survivors that I’ve known and care for very deeply,” Dr. Drachman said in an interview. “I think that there’s a lot of opportunity here as well.”

Asked what other trials have the potential to change practice, Dr. Drachman said FLOWER-MI holds particular interest because it looks at how to manage patients with STEMI with multiple lesions at the point of care.

“We’ve gained a lot of clarity from several other prior clinical trials, but this will help to answer the question in a slightly different way of saying: can you eyeball it, can you look at the angiogram and say whether or not that other, nonculprit lesion ought to be treated in the same hospitalization or should you really be using a pressure wire,” he said. “For me as an interventionalist, this is really important because when you finish up doing an intervention on a patient it might be the middle of the night and the patient may be more or less stable, but you’ve already exposed them to the risk of a procedure, should you then move on and do another aspect of the procedure to interrogate with a pressure wire a remaining narrowing? I think that’s very important; that’ll help me make decisions on a day-to-day basis.”

Dr. Drachman also cited RADIANCE-HTN TRIO because it employs an endovascular technique to control blood pressure in patients with hypertension, specifically those resistant to multiple drugs.

During the press conference, Dr. Morris, a preventive cardiologist, put her money on the ADAPTABLE study of aspirin dosing, reiterating that the unique trial design could inform future research, and on Sunday’s 8:45 a.m. late-breaking post hoc analysis from the STRENGTH trial that looks to pick up where the controversy over omega-3 fatty acid preparations left off at last year’s American Heart Association meeting.

A lack of benefit on CV event rates reported with Epanova, a high-dose combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid, led to a contentious debate over how to reconcile STRENGTH with the findings from REDUCE-IT, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major CV events with the EPA product icosapent ethyl (Vascepa).

STRENGTH investigator Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, and REDUCE-IT investigator and session panelist Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, will share the virtual stage at ACC 2021, but Dr. Morris said the “good news” is both researchers know one another very well and “will really be focusing on no political issues, just the omega-3 fatty levels in the bloodstream and what does that mean in either trial.

“This is not designed to be a debate, point counterpoint,” she added.

For that, as all cardiologists and journalists know, there will be the wild and woolly #CardioTwitter sphere.

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

The American College of Cardiology pulled off an impressive all-virtual meeting in March 2020, less than 3 weeks after canceling its in-person event and just 2 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency.

Optimistic plans for the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology (ACC 2021) to be a March hybrid affair in Atlanta pivoted not once, but twice, as the pandemic evolved, with the date pushed back 2 full months, to May 15-17, and the format revised to fully virtual.

“While this meeting is being delivered virtually, I think you’ll see there have been benefits in the time to plan and also the lessons that ACC has learned in virtual education over the past year. This has come together to really create a robust educational and scientific agenda,” ACC 2021 chair Pamela B. Morris, MD, said in a press conference focused on the upcoming meeting.

Over the 3 days, there will be more than 200 education sessions, 10 guideline-specific sessions, and 11 learning pathways that include core areas, but also special topics, such as COVID-19 and the emerging cardio-obstetrics subspecialty.

The meeting will be delivered through a new virtual education program built to optimize real-time interaction between faculty members and attendees, she said. A dedicated portal on the platform will allow attendees to interact virtually, for example, with presenters of the nearly 3,000 ePosters and 420 moderated posters.

For those suffering from Zoom fatigue, the increasingly popular Heart2Heart stage talks have also been converted to podcasts, which cover topics like gender equity in cardiology, the evolving role of advanced practice professionals, and “one of my favorites: art as a tool for healing,” said Dr. Morris, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Those sessions are really not to be missed.”

Reconnecting is an underlying theme of the meeting but the great divider will not be ignored. COVID-19 will be the focus of two 90-minute Intensive Sessions on Saturday, May 15, the first kicking off at 10:30 a.m. ET, with the Bishop Keynote lecture on bringing health equity to the frontline of cardiovascular care, followed by lessons learned during the pandemic, how to conduct clinical trials, and vaccine development.

The second session, set for 12:15 p.m., continues the “silver linings” theme, with case presentations on advances in telehealth, myocardial involvement, and thrombosis in COVID. For those wanting more, 18 abstracts are on tap in a 2-hour Spotlight on Special Topics session beginning at 2:30 p.m.

Asked about the pandemic’s effect on bringing science to fruition this past year, Dr. Morris said there’s no question it’s slowed some of the progress the cardiology community had made but, like clinical practice, “we’ve also surmounted many of those obstacles.”

“I think research has rebounded,” she said. “Just in terms of the number of abstracts and the quality of abstracts that were submitted this year, I don’t think there’s any question that we are right on par with previous years.”

Indeed, 5,258 abstracts from 76 countries were submitted, with more than 3,400 chosen for oral and poster presentation, including 25 late-breaking clinical trials to be presented in five sessions.

The late-breaking presentations and discussions will be prerecorded but speakers and panelists have been invited to be present during the streaming to answer live any questions that may arise in the chat box, ACC 2021 vice chair Douglas Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
 

Late-breaking clinical trials

The Joint ACC/JACC Late-Breaking Clinical Trials I (Saturday, May 15, 9:00 a.m.–-10:00 a.m.) kicks off with PARADISE-MI, the first head-to-head comparison of an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and an ACE inhibitor in patients with reduced ejection fractions (EFs) after MI but no history of heart failure (HF), studying 200 mg sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) versus 5 mg of ramipril, both twice daily, in 5,669 patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan was initially approved for HF with reduced EF and added a new indication to treat some HF patients with preserved EF. Novartis, however, recently told investors that although numerical trends consistently favored the ARNI over the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the phase 3 study failed to meet the primary endpoint for efficacy superiority of reducing the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death and HF events after an acute MI.

Second up is ADAPTABLE, which looks to close a surprising evidence gap over whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily is the optimal dose of the ubiquitously prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention in high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic CV disease.

The open-label, randomized study will look at efficacy and major bleeding over roughly 4 years in 15,000 patients within PCORnet, the National Patient-centered Clinical Research Network, a partnership of clinical research, health plan research, and patient-powered networks created to streamline patient-reported outcomes research.

“This study will not only give important clinical information for us, practically speaking, whether we should prescribe lower- or higher-dose aspirin, but it may also serve as a template for future pragmatic clinical trial design in the real world,” Dr. Drachman said during the press conference.

Up next is the 4,812-patient Canadian LAAOS III, the largest trial to examine the efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) already undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome is the first occurrence of stroke or systemic arterial embolism over an average follow-up of 4 years.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been shown to reduce stroke in AFib patients at high-risk of bleeding on systemic anticoagulation. But these devices can be expensive and studies haven’t included patients who also have valvular heart disease, a group that actually comprises more than half of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who also have AFib, he noted.

At the same time, surgical LAA closure studies have been small and have had very mixed results. “There isn’t a large-scale rigorous assessment out there for these patients undergoing surgery, so I think this is going to be fascinating to see,” Dr. Drachman said.

The session closes with ATLANTIS, which looks to shed some light on the role of anticoagulation therapy in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI). POPular TAVI, presented at ACC 2020, showed aspirin alone was the preferred antithrombotic therapy over aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) in patients not on oral anticoagulants, but the optimal anticoagulation regimen remains unsettled.

The French open-label, 1,510-patient ATLANTIS trial examined whether the novel oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) is superior in preventing CV events after TAVR, compared with antiplatelet therapy in patients without an indication for anticoagulation and compared with vitamin K antagonists in those receiving anticoagulants.

An ATLANTIS 4D CT substudy of valve thrombosis is also slated for Saturday’s Featured Clinical Research 1 session at 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m..
 

Sunday LBCTs

Dr. Drachman highlighted a series of other late-breaking studies, including the global DARE-19 trial testing the diabetes and HF drug dapagliflozin (Farxiga) given with local standard-of-care therapy for 30 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CV, metabolic, or renal risk factors.

Although sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been white-hot of late, top-line results reported last month show dapagliflozin failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoints of reducing organ dysfunction and all-cause mortality and for improving recovery. Details will be presented in the Joint ACC/JAMA Late-Breaking Clinical Trials II (Sunday, May 16, 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.).

Two trials, FLOWER-MI and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, were singled out in the Joint ACC/New England Journal of Medicine Late-Breaking Clinical Trials III (Sunday, May 16, 10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.). FLOWER-MI examines whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) is better than angiography to guide complete multivessel revascularization in ST-elevation MI patients with at least 50% stenosis in at least one nonculprit lesion requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies have shown the superiority of FFR-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions, compared with culprit lesion treatment-only, but this is the first time FFR- and angiography-guided PCI have been compared in STEMI patients.

RADIANCE-HTN TRIO already tipped its hand, with top-line results reported in late 2020 showing that the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of greater reduction in daytime blood pressure over 2 months with the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation system, compared with a sham procedure, in 136 patients with resistant hypertension, importantly, after being given a single pill containing a calcium channel blocker, angiotensin II receptor blocker, and diuretic.

Renal denervation for hypertension has been making something of a comeback, with the 2018 RADIANCE-HTN SOLO reporting better ambulatory blood pressure control with the Paradise system than with a sham procedure in the absence of antihypertensive agents. The device has been granted breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertensive patients who are unable to sufficiently respond to or are intolerant of antihypertensive therapy.
 

Monday LBCTs

In the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials IV session (Monday, May 17, 8 a.m.–9:30 a.m.), Drachman called out a secondary analysis from GALATIC-HF looking at the impact of EF on the therapeutic effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. In last year’s primary analysis, the selective cardiac myosin activator produced a modest but significant reduction in HF events or CV death in 8,232 patients with HF and an EF of 35% or less.

Rounding out the list is the Canadian CAPITAL CHILL study of moderate versus mild therapeutic hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, to be presented in the final Late-Breaking Clinical Trials V session (Monday, May 17, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.).

The double-blind trial sought to determine whether neurologic outcomes at 6 months are improved by targeting a core temperature of 31 ˚C versus 34 ˚C after the return of spontaneous circulation in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“For me, I think this could really change practice and has personal relevance from experience with cardiac arrest survivors that I’ve known and care for very deeply,” Dr. Drachman said in an interview. “I think that there’s a lot of opportunity here as well.”

Asked what other trials have the potential to change practice, Dr. Drachman said FLOWER-MI holds particular interest because it looks at how to manage patients with STEMI with multiple lesions at the point of care.

“We’ve gained a lot of clarity from several other prior clinical trials, but this will help to answer the question in a slightly different way of saying: can you eyeball it, can you look at the angiogram and say whether or not that other, nonculprit lesion ought to be treated in the same hospitalization or should you really be using a pressure wire,” he said. “For me as an interventionalist, this is really important because when you finish up doing an intervention on a patient it might be the middle of the night and the patient may be more or less stable, but you’ve already exposed them to the risk of a procedure, should you then move on and do another aspect of the procedure to interrogate with a pressure wire a remaining narrowing? I think that’s very important; that’ll help me make decisions on a day-to-day basis.”

Dr. Drachman also cited RADIANCE-HTN TRIO because it employs an endovascular technique to control blood pressure in patients with hypertension, specifically those resistant to multiple drugs.

During the press conference, Dr. Morris, a preventive cardiologist, put her money on the ADAPTABLE study of aspirin dosing, reiterating that the unique trial design could inform future research, and on Sunday’s 8:45 a.m. late-breaking post hoc analysis from the STRENGTH trial that looks to pick up where the controversy over omega-3 fatty acid preparations left off at last year’s American Heart Association meeting.

A lack of benefit on CV event rates reported with Epanova, a high-dose combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid, led to a contentious debate over how to reconcile STRENGTH with the findings from REDUCE-IT, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major CV events with the EPA product icosapent ethyl (Vascepa).

STRENGTH investigator Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, and REDUCE-IT investigator and session panelist Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, will share the virtual stage at ACC 2021, but Dr. Morris said the “good news” is both researchers know one another very well and “will really be focusing on no political issues, just the omega-3 fatty levels in the bloodstream and what does that mean in either trial.

“This is not designed to be a debate, point counterpoint,” she added.

For that, as all cardiologists and journalists know, there will be the wild and woolly #CardioTwitter sphere.

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

The American College of Cardiology pulled off an impressive all-virtual meeting in March 2020, less than 3 weeks after canceling its in-person event and just 2 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency.

Optimistic plans for the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology (ACC 2021) to be a March hybrid affair in Atlanta pivoted not once, but twice, as the pandemic evolved, with the date pushed back 2 full months, to May 15-17, and the format revised to fully virtual.

“While this meeting is being delivered virtually, I think you’ll see there have been benefits in the time to plan and also the lessons that ACC has learned in virtual education over the past year. This has come together to really create a robust educational and scientific agenda,” ACC 2021 chair Pamela B. Morris, MD, said in a press conference focused on the upcoming meeting.

Over the 3 days, there will be more than 200 education sessions, 10 guideline-specific sessions, and 11 learning pathways that include core areas, but also special topics, such as COVID-19 and the emerging cardio-obstetrics subspecialty.

The meeting will be delivered through a new virtual education program built to optimize real-time interaction between faculty members and attendees, she said. A dedicated portal on the platform will allow attendees to interact virtually, for example, with presenters of the nearly 3,000 ePosters and 420 moderated posters.

For those suffering from Zoom fatigue, the increasingly popular Heart2Heart stage talks have also been converted to podcasts, which cover topics like gender equity in cardiology, the evolving role of advanced practice professionals, and “one of my favorites: art as a tool for healing,” said Dr. Morris, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Those sessions are really not to be missed.”

Reconnecting is an underlying theme of the meeting but the great divider will not be ignored. COVID-19 will be the focus of two 90-minute Intensive Sessions on Saturday, May 15, the first kicking off at 10:30 a.m. ET, with the Bishop Keynote lecture on bringing health equity to the frontline of cardiovascular care, followed by lessons learned during the pandemic, how to conduct clinical trials, and vaccine development.

The second session, set for 12:15 p.m., continues the “silver linings” theme, with case presentations on advances in telehealth, myocardial involvement, and thrombosis in COVID. For those wanting more, 18 abstracts are on tap in a 2-hour Spotlight on Special Topics session beginning at 2:30 p.m.

Asked about the pandemic’s effect on bringing science to fruition this past year, Dr. Morris said there’s no question it’s slowed some of the progress the cardiology community had made but, like clinical practice, “we’ve also surmounted many of those obstacles.”

“I think research has rebounded,” she said. “Just in terms of the number of abstracts and the quality of abstracts that were submitted this year, I don’t think there’s any question that we are right on par with previous years.”

Indeed, 5,258 abstracts from 76 countries were submitted, with more than 3,400 chosen for oral and poster presentation, including 25 late-breaking clinical trials to be presented in five sessions.

The late-breaking presentations and discussions will be prerecorded but speakers and panelists have been invited to be present during the streaming to answer live any questions that may arise in the chat box, ACC 2021 vice chair Douglas Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
 

Late-breaking clinical trials

The Joint ACC/JACC Late-Breaking Clinical Trials I (Saturday, May 15, 9:00 a.m.–-10:00 a.m.) kicks off with PARADISE-MI, the first head-to-head comparison of an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and an ACE inhibitor in patients with reduced ejection fractions (EFs) after MI but no history of heart failure (HF), studying 200 mg sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) versus 5 mg of ramipril, both twice daily, in 5,669 patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan was initially approved for HF with reduced EF and added a new indication to treat some HF patients with preserved EF. Novartis, however, recently told investors that although numerical trends consistently favored the ARNI over the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the phase 3 study failed to meet the primary endpoint for efficacy superiority of reducing the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death and HF events after an acute MI.

Second up is ADAPTABLE, which looks to close a surprising evidence gap over whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily is the optimal dose of the ubiquitously prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention in high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic CV disease.

The open-label, randomized study will look at efficacy and major bleeding over roughly 4 years in 15,000 patients within PCORnet, the National Patient-centered Clinical Research Network, a partnership of clinical research, health plan research, and patient-powered networks created to streamline patient-reported outcomes research.

“This study will not only give important clinical information for us, practically speaking, whether we should prescribe lower- or higher-dose aspirin, but it may also serve as a template for future pragmatic clinical trial design in the real world,” Dr. Drachman said during the press conference.

Up next is the 4,812-patient Canadian LAAOS III, the largest trial to examine the efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) already undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome is the first occurrence of stroke or systemic arterial embolism over an average follow-up of 4 years.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been shown to reduce stroke in AFib patients at high-risk of bleeding on systemic anticoagulation. But these devices can be expensive and studies haven’t included patients who also have valvular heart disease, a group that actually comprises more than half of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who also have AFib, he noted.

At the same time, surgical LAA closure studies have been small and have had very mixed results. “There isn’t a large-scale rigorous assessment out there for these patients undergoing surgery, so I think this is going to be fascinating to see,” Dr. Drachman said.

The session closes with ATLANTIS, which looks to shed some light on the role of anticoagulation therapy in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI). POPular TAVI, presented at ACC 2020, showed aspirin alone was the preferred antithrombotic therapy over aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) in patients not on oral anticoagulants, but the optimal anticoagulation regimen remains unsettled.

The French open-label, 1,510-patient ATLANTIS trial examined whether the novel oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) is superior in preventing CV events after TAVR, compared with antiplatelet therapy in patients without an indication for anticoagulation and compared with vitamin K antagonists in those receiving anticoagulants.

An ATLANTIS 4D CT substudy of valve thrombosis is also slated for Saturday’s Featured Clinical Research 1 session at 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m..
 

Sunday LBCTs

Dr. Drachman highlighted a series of other late-breaking studies, including the global DARE-19 trial testing the diabetes and HF drug dapagliflozin (Farxiga) given with local standard-of-care therapy for 30 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CV, metabolic, or renal risk factors.

Although sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been white-hot of late, top-line results reported last month show dapagliflozin failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoints of reducing organ dysfunction and all-cause mortality and for improving recovery. Details will be presented in the Joint ACC/JAMA Late-Breaking Clinical Trials II (Sunday, May 16, 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.).

Two trials, FLOWER-MI and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, were singled out in the Joint ACC/New England Journal of Medicine Late-Breaking Clinical Trials III (Sunday, May 16, 10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.). FLOWER-MI examines whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) is better than angiography to guide complete multivessel revascularization in ST-elevation MI patients with at least 50% stenosis in at least one nonculprit lesion requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies have shown the superiority of FFR-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions, compared with culprit lesion treatment-only, but this is the first time FFR- and angiography-guided PCI have been compared in STEMI patients.

RADIANCE-HTN TRIO already tipped its hand, with top-line results reported in late 2020 showing that the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of greater reduction in daytime blood pressure over 2 months with the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation system, compared with a sham procedure, in 136 patients with resistant hypertension, importantly, after being given a single pill containing a calcium channel blocker, angiotensin II receptor blocker, and diuretic.

Renal denervation for hypertension has been making something of a comeback, with the 2018 RADIANCE-HTN SOLO reporting better ambulatory blood pressure control with the Paradise system than with a sham procedure in the absence of antihypertensive agents. The device has been granted breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertensive patients who are unable to sufficiently respond to or are intolerant of antihypertensive therapy.
 

Monday LBCTs

In the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials IV session (Monday, May 17, 8 a.m.–9:30 a.m.), Drachman called out a secondary analysis from GALATIC-HF looking at the impact of EF on the therapeutic effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. In last year’s primary analysis, the selective cardiac myosin activator produced a modest but significant reduction in HF events or CV death in 8,232 patients with HF and an EF of 35% or less.

Rounding out the list is the Canadian CAPITAL CHILL study of moderate versus mild therapeutic hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, to be presented in the final Late-Breaking Clinical Trials V session (Monday, May 17, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.).

The double-blind trial sought to determine whether neurologic outcomes at 6 months are improved by targeting a core temperature of 31 ˚C versus 34 ˚C after the return of spontaneous circulation in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“For me, I think this could really change practice and has personal relevance from experience with cardiac arrest survivors that I’ve known and care for very deeply,” Dr. Drachman said in an interview. “I think that there’s a lot of opportunity here as well.”

Asked what other trials have the potential to change practice, Dr. Drachman said FLOWER-MI holds particular interest because it looks at how to manage patients with STEMI with multiple lesions at the point of care.

“We’ve gained a lot of clarity from several other prior clinical trials, but this will help to answer the question in a slightly different way of saying: can you eyeball it, can you look at the angiogram and say whether or not that other, nonculprit lesion ought to be treated in the same hospitalization or should you really be using a pressure wire,” he said. “For me as an interventionalist, this is really important because when you finish up doing an intervention on a patient it might be the middle of the night and the patient may be more or less stable, but you’ve already exposed them to the risk of a procedure, should you then move on and do another aspect of the procedure to interrogate with a pressure wire a remaining narrowing? I think that’s very important; that’ll help me make decisions on a day-to-day basis.”

Dr. Drachman also cited RADIANCE-HTN TRIO because it employs an endovascular technique to control blood pressure in patients with hypertension, specifically those resistant to multiple drugs.

During the press conference, Dr. Morris, a preventive cardiologist, put her money on the ADAPTABLE study of aspirin dosing, reiterating that the unique trial design could inform future research, and on Sunday’s 8:45 a.m. late-breaking post hoc analysis from the STRENGTH trial that looks to pick up where the controversy over omega-3 fatty acid preparations left off at last year’s American Heart Association meeting.

A lack of benefit on CV event rates reported with Epanova, a high-dose combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid, led to a contentious debate over how to reconcile STRENGTH with the findings from REDUCE-IT, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major CV events with the EPA product icosapent ethyl (Vascepa).

STRENGTH investigator Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, and REDUCE-IT investigator and session panelist Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, will share the virtual stage at ACC 2021, but Dr. Morris said the “good news” is both researchers know one another very well and “will really be focusing on no political issues, just the omega-3 fatty levels in the bloodstream and what does that mean in either trial.

“This is not designed to be a debate, point counterpoint,” she added.

For that, as all cardiologists and journalists know, there will be the wild and woolly #CardioTwitter sphere.

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

In 2016, results from the LEADER trial of liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes helped jump-start awareness of the potential role of this new class of drugs, the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists, for reducing cardiovascular events. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolled more than 9000 patients at more than 400 sites in over 30 countries, and took nearly 6 years from the start of patient enrollment to publication of the landmark results.

In December 2020, an independent team of researchers published results from a study with a design identical to LEADER, but used data that came not from a massive, global, years-long trial but from already-existing numbers culled from three large U.S. insurance claim databases. The result of this emulation using real-world data was virtually identical to what the actual trial showed, replicating both the direction and statistical significance of the original finding of the randomized, controlled trial (RCT).

What if research proved that this sort of RCT emulation could reliably be done on a regular basis? What might it mean for regulatory decisions on drugs and devices that historically have been based entirely on efficacy evidence from RCTs?
 

Making the most of a sea of observational data

Medicine in the United States has become increasingly awash in a sea of observational data collected from sources that include electronic health records, insurance claims, and increasingly, personal-health monitoring devices.

The Food and Drug Administration is now in the process of trying to figure out how it can legitimately harness this tsunami of real-world data to make efficacy decisions, essentially creating a new category of evidence to complement traditional data from randomized trials. It’s an opportunity that agency staff and their outside advisors have been keen to seize, especially given the soaring cost of prospective, randomized trials.

Recognition of this untapped resource in part led to a key initiative, among many others, included in the 21st Century Cures Act, passed in December 2016. Among the Act’s mandates was that, by the end of 2021, the FDA would issue guidance on when drug sponsors could use real-world evidence (RWE) to either help support a new indication for an already approved drug or help satisfy postapproval study requirements.

The initiative recognizes that this approach is not appropriate for initial drug approvals, which remain exclusively reliant on evidence from RCTs. Instead, it seems best suited to support expanding indications for already approved drugs.

Although FDA staff have made progress in identifying the challenges and broadening their understanding of how to best handle real-world data that come from observing patients in routine practice, agency leaders stress that this complex issue will likely not be fully resolved by their guidance to be published later this year. The FDA released a draft of the guidance in May 2019.
 

Can RWE be ‘credible and reliable?’

“Whether observational, nonrandomized data can become credible enough to use is what we’re talking about. These are possibilities that need to be explained and better understood,” said Robert Temple, MD, deputy director for clinical science of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Since the 1970s, the FDA has recognized historical controls as legitimate, so it’s possible [for RWE] to be credible. The big test is when is it credible and reliable enough [to assess efficacy]?” wondered Dr. Temple during a 2-day workshop on the topic held mid-February and organized by Duke University’s Margolis Center for Health Policy.

“We’re approaching an inflection point regarding how observational studies are generated and used, but our evidentiary standards will not lower, and it will be a case-by-case decision” by the agency as they review future RWE submissions, said John Concato, MD, the FDA’s associate director for real-world evidence, during the workshop.

“We are working toward guidance development, but also looking down the road to what we need to do to enable this,” said Dr. Concato. “It’s a complicated issue. If it was easy, it would have already been fixed.” He added that the agency will likely release a “portfolio” of guidance for submitting real-world data and RWE. Real-world data are raw information that, when analyzed, become RWE.

In short, the FDA seems headed toward guidance that won’t spell out a pathway that guarantees success using RWE but will at least open the door to consideration of this unprecedented application.
 

Not like flipping a switch

The guidance will not activate acceptance of RWE all at once. “It’s not like a light switch,” cautioned Adam Kroetsch, MPP, research director for biomedical innovation and regulatory policy at Duke-Margolis in Washington, D.C. “It’s an evolutionary process,” and the upcoming guidance will provide “just a little more clarity” on what sorts of best practices using RWE the FDA will find persuasive. “It’s hard for the FDA to clearly say what it’s looking for until they see some good examples,” Dr. Kroetsch said in an interview.

What will change is that drug sponsors can submit using RWE, and the FDA “will have a more open-minded view,” predicted Sebastian Schneeweiss, MD, ScD, a workshop participant and chief of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “For the first time, a law required [the FDA] to take a serious look” at observational data for efficacy assessment.

“The FDA has had a bias against using RWE for evidence of efficacy but has long used it to understand drug safety. Now the FDA is trying to wrap its arms around how to best use RWE” for efficacy decisions, said Joseph S. Ross, MD, another workshop participant and professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The agency’s cautious approach is reassuring, Dr. Ross noted in an interview. “There was worry that the 21st Century Cures Act would open the door to allowing real-world data to be used in ways that weren’t very reliable. Very quickly, the FDA started trying to figure out the best ways to use these data in reasonable ways.”
 

Duplicating RCTs with RWE

To help better understand the potential use of RWE, the FDA sponsored several demonstration projects. Researchers presented results from three of these projects during the workshop in February. All three examined whether RWE, plugged into the design of an actual RCT, can produce roughly similar results when similar patients are used.

A generally consistent finding from the three demonstration projects was that “when the data are fit for purpose” the emulated or duplicated analyses with RWE “can come to similar conclusions” as the actual RCTs, said Dr. Schneeweiss, who leads one of the demonstration projects, RCT DUPLICATE.

At the workshop he reported results from RWE duplications of 20 different RCTs using insurance claims data from U.S. patients. The findings came from 10 duplications already reported in Circulation in December 2020 (including a duplication of the LEADER trial), and an additional 10 as yet unpublished RCT duplications. In the next few months, the researchers intend to assess a final group of 10 more RCT duplications.

Workshop participants also presented results from two other FDA demonstration projects: the OPERAND program run by the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard; and the CERSI program based at Yale and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Both are smaller in scale than RCT DUPLICATE, incorporate lab data in addition to claims data, and in some cases test how well RWE can emulate RCTs that are not yet completed.

Collectively, results from these demonstration projects suggest that RWE can successfully emulate the results of an RCT, said Dr. Ross, a coinvestigator on the CERSI study. But the CERSI findings also highlighted how an RCT can fall short of clinical relevance.

“One of our most important findings was that RCTs don’t always represent real-world practice,” he said. His group attempted to replicate the 5,000-patient GRADE trial of four different drug options added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. One of the four options included insulin glargine (Lantus), and the attempt to emulate the study with RWE hit the bump that no relevant real-world patients in their US claims database actually received the formulation.

That means the GRADE trial “is almost meaningless. It doesn’t reflect real-world practice,” Dr. Ross noted.

Results from the three demonstration projects “highlight the gaps we still have,” summed up Dr. Kroetsch. “They show where we need better data” from observational sources that function as well as data from RCTs.

Still, the demonstration project results are “an important step forward in establishing the validity of real-world evidence,” commented David Kerr, MBChB, an endocrinologist and director of research and innovation at the Sansum Diabetes Research Institute in Santa Barbara, Calif.
 

‘Target trials’ tether RWE

The target trial approach to designing an observational study is a key tool for boosting reliability and applicability of the results. The idea is to create a well-designed trial that could be the basis for a conventional RCT, and then use observational data to flesh out the target trial instead of collecting data from prospectively enrolled patients.

Designing observational studies that emulate target trials allows causal inferences, said Miguel A. Hernán, MD, DrPH, a professor of biostatistics and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. Plugging real-world data into the framework of an appropriately designed target trial substantially cuts the risk of a biased analysis, he explained during the workshop.

However, the approach has limitations. The target trial must be a pragmatic trial, and the approach does not work for placebo-controlled trials, although it can accommodate a usual-care control arm. It also usually precludes patient blinding, testing treatments not used in routine practice, and close monitoring of patients in ways that are uncommon in usual care.

The target trial approach received broad endorsement during the workshop as the future for observational studies destined for efficacy consideration by the FDA.

“The idea of prespecifying a target trial is a really fantastic place to start,” commented Robert Ball, MD, deputy director of the FDA Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. “There is still a whole set of questions once the trial is prespecified, but prespecification would be a fantastic step forward,” he said during the workshop.

Participants also endorsed other important steps to boost the value of observational studies for regulatory reviews, including preregistering the study on a site such as clinicaltrials.gov; being fully transparent about the origins of observational data; using data that match the needs of the target trial; not reviewing the data in advance to avoid cherry picking and gaming the analysis; and reporting neutral or negative results when they occur, something often not currently done for observational analyses.

But although there was clear progress and much agreement among thought leaders at the workshop, FDA representatives stressed caution in moving forward.
 

“No easy answer”

“With more experience, we can learn what works and what doesn’t work in generating valid results from observational studies,” said Dr. Concato. “Although the observational results have upside potential, we need to learn more. There is no easy answer, no checklist for fit-for-use data, no off-the-shelf study design, and no ideal analytic method.”

Dr. Concato acknowledged that the FDA’s goal is clear given the 2016 legislation. “The FDA is embracing our obligations under the 21st Century Cures Act to evaluate use of real-world data and real-world evidence.”

He also suggested that researchers “shy away from a false dichotomy of RCTs or observational studies and instead think about how and when RCTs and observational studies can be designed and conducted to yield trustworthy results.” Dr. Concato’s solution: “a taxonomy of interventional or noninterventional studies.”

“The FDA is under enormous pressure to embrace real-world evidence, both because of the economics of running RCTs and because of the availability of new observational data from electronic health records, wearable devices, claims, etc.,” said Dr. Kerr, who did not participate in the workshop but coauthored an editorial that calls for using real-world data in regulatory decisions for drugs and devices for diabetes. These factors create an “irresistible force” spurring the FDA to consider observational, noninterventional data.

“I think the FDA really wants this to go forward,” Dr. Kerr added in an interview. “The FDA keeps telling us that clinical trials do not have enough women or patients from minority groups. Real-world data is a way to address that. This will not be the death of RCTs, but this work shines a light on the deficiencies of RCTs and how the deficiencies can be dealt with.”

Dr. Kroetsch has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Schneeweiss has reported being a consultant to and holding equity in Aetion and receiving research funding from the FDA. Dr. Ross has reported receiving research funding from the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic. Dr. Hernán has reported being a consultant for Cytel. Dr. Kerr has reported being a consultant for Ascensia, EOFlow, Lifecare, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, and Voluntis. Dr. Temple, Dr. Concato, and Dr. Ball are FDA employees.

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

In 2016, results from the LEADER trial of liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes helped jump-start awareness of the potential role of this new class of drugs, the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists, for reducing cardiovascular events. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolled more than 9000 patients at more than 400 sites in over 30 countries, and took nearly 6 years from the start of patient enrollment to publication of the landmark results.

In December 2020, an independent team of researchers published results from a study with a design identical to LEADER, but used data that came not from a massive, global, years-long trial but from already-existing numbers culled from three large U.S. insurance claim databases. The result of this emulation using real-world data was virtually identical to what the actual trial showed, replicating both the direction and statistical significance of the original finding of the randomized, controlled trial (RCT).

What if research proved that this sort of RCT emulation could reliably be done on a regular basis? What might it mean for regulatory decisions on drugs and devices that historically have been based entirely on efficacy evidence from RCTs?
 

Making the most of a sea of observational data

Medicine in the United States has become increasingly awash in a sea of observational data collected from sources that include electronic health records, insurance claims, and increasingly, personal-health monitoring devices.

The Food and Drug Administration is now in the process of trying to figure out how it can legitimately harness this tsunami of real-world data to make efficacy decisions, essentially creating a new category of evidence to complement traditional data from randomized trials. It’s an opportunity that agency staff and their outside advisors have been keen to seize, especially given the soaring cost of prospective, randomized trials.

Recognition of this untapped resource in part led to a key initiative, among many others, included in the 21st Century Cures Act, passed in December 2016. Among the Act’s mandates was that, by the end of 2021, the FDA would issue guidance on when drug sponsors could use real-world evidence (RWE) to either help support a new indication for an already approved drug or help satisfy postapproval study requirements.

The initiative recognizes that this approach is not appropriate for initial drug approvals, which remain exclusively reliant on evidence from RCTs. Instead, it seems best suited to support expanding indications for already approved drugs.

Although FDA staff have made progress in identifying the challenges and broadening their understanding of how to best handle real-world data that come from observing patients in routine practice, agency leaders stress that this complex issue will likely not be fully resolved by their guidance to be published later this year. The FDA released a draft of the guidance in May 2019.
 

Can RWE be ‘credible and reliable?’

“Whether observational, nonrandomized data can become credible enough to use is what we’re talking about. These are possibilities that need to be explained and better understood,” said Robert Temple, MD, deputy director for clinical science of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Since the 1970s, the FDA has recognized historical controls as legitimate, so it’s possible [for RWE] to be credible. The big test is when is it credible and reliable enough [to assess efficacy]?” wondered Dr. Temple during a 2-day workshop on the topic held mid-February and organized by Duke University’s Margolis Center for Health Policy.

“We’re approaching an inflection point regarding how observational studies are generated and used, but our evidentiary standards will not lower, and it will be a case-by-case decision” by the agency as they review future RWE submissions, said John Concato, MD, the FDA’s associate director for real-world evidence, during the workshop.

“We are working toward guidance development, but also looking down the road to what we need to do to enable this,” said Dr. Concato. “It’s a complicated issue. If it was easy, it would have already been fixed.” He added that the agency will likely release a “portfolio” of guidance for submitting real-world data and RWE. Real-world data are raw information that, when analyzed, become RWE.

In short, the FDA seems headed toward guidance that won’t spell out a pathway that guarantees success using RWE but will at least open the door to consideration of this unprecedented application.
 

Not like flipping a switch

The guidance will not activate acceptance of RWE all at once. “It’s not like a light switch,” cautioned Adam Kroetsch, MPP, research director for biomedical innovation and regulatory policy at Duke-Margolis in Washington, D.C. “It’s an evolutionary process,” and the upcoming guidance will provide “just a little more clarity” on what sorts of best practices using RWE the FDA will find persuasive. “It’s hard for the FDA to clearly say what it’s looking for until they see some good examples,” Dr. Kroetsch said in an interview.

What will change is that drug sponsors can submit using RWE, and the FDA “will have a more open-minded view,” predicted Sebastian Schneeweiss, MD, ScD, a workshop participant and chief of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “For the first time, a law required [the FDA] to take a serious look” at observational data for efficacy assessment.

“The FDA has had a bias against using RWE for evidence of efficacy but has long used it to understand drug safety. Now the FDA is trying to wrap its arms around how to best use RWE” for efficacy decisions, said Joseph S. Ross, MD, another workshop participant and professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The agency’s cautious approach is reassuring, Dr. Ross noted in an interview. “There was worry that the 21st Century Cures Act would open the door to allowing real-world data to be used in ways that weren’t very reliable. Very quickly, the FDA started trying to figure out the best ways to use these data in reasonable ways.”
 

Duplicating RCTs with RWE

To help better understand the potential use of RWE, the FDA sponsored several demonstration projects. Researchers presented results from three of these projects during the workshop in February. All three examined whether RWE, plugged into the design of an actual RCT, can produce roughly similar results when similar patients are used.

A generally consistent finding from the three demonstration projects was that “when the data are fit for purpose” the emulated or duplicated analyses with RWE “can come to similar conclusions” as the actual RCTs, said Dr. Schneeweiss, who leads one of the demonstration projects, RCT DUPLICATE.

At the workshop he reported results from RWE duplications of 20 different RCTs using insurance claims data from U.S. patients. The findings came from 10 duplications already reported in Circulation in December 2020 (including a duplication of the LEADER trial), and an additional 10 as yet unpublished RCT duplications. In the next few months, the researchers intend to assess a final group of 10 more RCT duplications.

Workshop participants also presented results from two other FDA demonstration projects: the OPERAND program run by the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard; and the CERSI program based at Yale and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Both are smaller in scale than RCT DUPLICATE, incorporate lab data in addition to claims data, and in some cases test how well RWE can emulate RCTs that are not yet completed.

Collectively, results from these demonstration projects suggest that RWE can successfully emulate the results of an RCT, said Dr. Ross, a coinvestigator on the CERSI study. But the CERSI findings also highlighted how an RCT can fall short of clinical relevance.

“One of our most important findings was that RCTs don’t always represent real-world practice,” he said. His group attempted to replicate the 5,000-patient GRADE trial of four different drug options added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. One of the four options included insulin glargine (Lantus), and the attempt to emulate the study with RWE hit the bump that no relevant real-world patients in their US claims database actually received the formulation.

That means the GRADE trial “is almost meaningless. It doesn’t reflect real-world practice,” Dr. Ross noted.

Results from the three demonstration projects “highlight the gaps we still have,” summed up Dr. Kroetsch. “They show where we need better data” from observational sources that function as well as data from RCTs.

Still, the demonstration project results are “an important step forward in establishing the validity of real-world evidence,” commented David Kerr, MBChB, an endocrinologist and director of research and innovation at the Sansum Diabetes Research Institute in Santa Barbara, Calif.
 

‘Target trials’ tether RWE

The target trial approach to designing an observational study is a key tool for boosting reliability and applicability of the results. The idea is to create a well-designed trial that could be the basis for a conventional RCT, and then use observational data to flesh out the target trial instead of collecting data from prospectively enrolled patients.

Designing observational studies that emulate target trials allows causal inferences, said Miguel A. Hernán, MD, DrPH, a professor of biostatistics and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. Plugging real-world data into the framework of an appropriately designed target trial substantially cuts the risk of a biased analysis, he explained during the workshop.

However, the approach has limitations. The target trial must be a pragmatic trial, and the approach does not work for placebo-controlled trials, although it can accommodate a usual-care control arm. It also usually precludes patient blinding, testing treatments not used in routine practice, and close monitoring of patients in ways that are uncommon in usual care.

The target trial approach received broad endorsement during the workshop as the future for observational studies destined for efficacy consideration by the FDA.

“The idea of prespecifying a target trial is a really fantastic place to start,” commented Robert Ball, MD, deputy director of the FDA Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. “There is still a whole set of questions once the trial is prespecified, but prespecification would be a fantastic step forward,” he said during the workshop.

Participants also endorsed other important steps to boost the value of observational studies for regulatory reviews, including preregistering the study on a site such as clinicaltrials.gov; being fully transparent about the origins of observational data; using data that match the needs of the target trial; not reviewing the data in advance to avoid cherry picking and gaming the analysis; and reporting neutral or negative results when they occur, something often not currently done for observational analyses.

But although there was clear progress and much agreement among thought leaders at the workshop, FDA representatives stressed caution in moving forward.
 

“No easy answer”

“With more experience, we can learn what works and what doesn’t work in generating valid results from observational studies,” said Dr. Concato. “Although the observational results have upside potential, we need to learn more. There is no easy answer, no checklist for fit-for-use data, no off-the-shelf study design, and no ideal analytic method.”

Dr. Concato acknowledged that the FDA’s goal is clear given the 2016 legislation. “The FDA is embracing our obligations under the 21st Century Cures Act to evaluate use of real-world data and real-world evidence.”

He also suggested that researchers “shy away from a false dichotomy of RCTs or observational studies and instead think about how and when RCTs and observational studies can be designed and conducted to yield trustworthy results.” Dr. Concato’s solution: “a taxonomy of interventional or noninterventional studies.”

“The FDA is under enormous pressure to embrace real-world evidence, both because of the economics of running RCTs and because of the availability of new observational data from electronic health records, wearable devices, claims, etc.,” said Dr. Kerr, who did not participate in the workshop but coauthored an editorial that calls for using real-world data in regulatory decisions for drugs and devices for diabetes. These factors create an “irresistible force” spurring the FDA to consider observational, noninterventional data.

“I think the FDA really wants this to go forward,” Dr. Kerr added in an interview. “The FDA keeps telling us that clinical trials do not have enough women or patients from minority groups. Real-world data is a way to address that. This will not be the death of RCTs, but this work shines a light on the deficiencies of RCTs and how the deficiencies can be dealt with.”

Dr. Kroetsch has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Schneeweiss has reported being a consultant to and holding equity in Aetion and receiving research funding from the FDA. Dr. Ross has reported receiving research funding from the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic. Dr. Hernán has reported being a consultant for Cytel. Dr. Kerr has reported being a consultant for Ascensia, EOFlow, Lifecare, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, and Voluntis. Dr. Temple, Dr. Concato, and Dr. Ball are FDA employees.

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

In 2016, results from the LEADER trial of liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes helped jump-start awareness of the potential role of this new class of drugs, the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists, for reducing cardiovascular events. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolled more than 9000 patients at more than 400 sites in over 30 countries, and took nearly 6 years from the start of patient enrollment to publication of the landmark results.

In December 2020, an independent team of researchers published results from a study with a design identical to LEADER, but used data that came not from a massive, global, years-long trial but from already-existing numbers culled from three large U.S. insurance claim databases. The result of this emulation using real-world data was virtually identical to what the actual trial showed, replicating both the direction and statistical significance of the original finding of the randomized, controlled trial (RCT).

What if research proved that this sort of RCT emulation could reliably be done on a regular basis? What might it mean for regulatory decisions on drugs and devices that historically have been based entirely on efficacy evidence from RCTs?
 

Making the most of a sea of observational data

Medicine in the United States has become increasingly awash in a sea of observational data collected from sources that include electronic health records, insurance claims, and increasingly, personal-health monitoring devices.

The Food and Drug Administration is now in the process of trying to figure out how it can legitimately harness this tsunami of real-world data to make efficacy decisions, essentially creating a new category of evidence to complement traditional data from randomized trials. It’s an opportunity that agency staff and their outside advisors have been keen to seize, especially given the soaring cost of prospective, randomized trials.

Recognition of this untapped resource in part led to a key initiative, among many others, included in the 21st Century Cures Act, passed in December 2016. Among the Act’s mandates was that, by the end of 2021, the FDA would issue guidance on when drug sponsors could use real-world evidence (RWE) to either help support a new indication for an already approved drug or help satisfy postapproval study requirements.

The initiative recognizes that this approach is not appropriate for initial drug approvals, which remain exclusively reliant on evidence from RCTs. Instead, it seems best suited to support expanding indications for already approved drugs.

Although FDA staff have made progress in identifying the challenges and broadening their understanding of how to best handle real-world data that come from observing patients in routine practice, agency leaders stress that this complex issue will likely not be fully resolved by their guidance to be published later this year. The FDA released a draft of the guidance in May 2019.
 

Can RWE be ‘credible and reliable?’

“Whether observational, nonrandomized data can become credible enough to use is what we’re talking about. These are possibilities that need to be explained and better understood,” said Robert Temple, MD, deputy director for clinical science of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Since the 1970s, the FDA has recognized historical controls as legitimate, so it’s possible [for RWE] to be credible. The big test is when is it credible and reliable enough [to assess efficacy]?” wondered Dr. Temple during a 2-day workshop on the topic held mid-February and organized by Duke University’s Margolis Center for Health Policy.

“We’re approaching an inflection point regarding how observational studies are generated and used, but our evidentiary standards will not lower, and it will be a case-by-case decision” by the agency as they review future RWE submissions, said John Concato, MD, the FDA’s associate director for real-world evidence, during the workshop.

“We are working toward guidance development, but also looking down the road to what we need to do to enable this,” said Dr. Concato. “It’s a complicated issue. If it was easy, it would have already been fixed.” He added that the agency will likely release a “portfolio” of guidance for submitting real-world data and RWE. Real-world data are raw information that, when analyzed, become RWE.

In short, the FDA seems headed toward guidance that won’t spell out a pathway that guarantees success using RWE but will at least open the door to consideration of this unprecedented application.
 

Not like flipping a switch

The guidance will not activate acceptance of RWE all at once. “It’s not like a light switch,” cautioned Adam Kroetsch, MPP, research director for biomedical innovation and regulatory policy at Duke-Margolis in Washington, D.C. “It’s an evolutionary process,” and the upcoming guidance will provide “just a little more clarity” on what sorts of best practices using RWE the FDA will find persuasive. “It’s hard for the FDA to clearly say what it’s looking for until they see some good examples,” Dr. Kroetsch said in an interview.

What will change is that drug sponsors can submit using RWE, and the FDA “will have a more open-minded view,” predicted Sebastian Schneeweiss, MD, ScD, a workshop participant and chief of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “For the first time, a law required [the FDA] to take a serious look” at observational data for efficacy assessment.

“The FDA has had a bias against using RWE for evidence of efficacy but has long used it to understand drug safety. Now the FDA is trying to wrap its arms around how to best use RWE” for efficacy decisions, said Joseph S. Ross, MD, another workshop participant and professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The agency’s cautious approach is reassuring, Dr. Ross noted in an interview. “There was worry that the 21st Century Cures Act would open the door to allowing real-world data to be used in ways that weren’t very reliable. Very quickly, the FDA started trying to figure out the best ways to use these data in reasonable ways.”
 

Duplicating RCTs with RWE

To help better understand the potential use of RWE, the FDA sponsored several demonstration projects. Researchers presented results from three of these projects during the workshop in February. All three examined whether RWE, plugged into the design of an actual RCT, can produce roughly similar results when similar patients are used.

A generally consistent finding from the three demonstration projects was that “when the data are fit for purpose” the emulated or duplicated analyses with RWE “can come to similar conclusions” as the actual RCTs, said Dr. Schneeweiss, who leads one of the demonstration projects, RCT DUPLICATE.

At the workshop he reported results from RWE duplications of 20 different RCTs using insurance claims data from U.S. patients. The findings came from 10 duplications already reported in Circulation in December 2020 (including a duplication of the LEADER trial), and an additional 10 as yet unpublished RCT duplications. In the next few months, the researchers intend to assess a final group of 10 more RCT duplications.

Workshop participants also presented results from two other FDA demonstration projects: the OPERAND program run by the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard; and the CERSI program based at Yale and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Both are smaller in scale than RCT DUPLICATE, incorporate lab data in addition to claims data, and in some cases test how well RWE can emulate RCTs that are not yet completed.

Collectively, results from these demonstration projects suggest that RWE can successfully emulate the results of an RCT, said Dr. Ross, a coinvestigator on the CERSI study. But the CERSI findings also highlighted how an RCT can fall short of clinical relevance.

“One of our most important findings was that RCTs don’t always represent real-world practice,” he said. His group attempted to replicate the 5,000-patient GRADE trial of four different drug options added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. One of the four options included insulin glargine (Lantus), and the attempt to emulate the study with RWE hit the bump that no relevant real-world patients in their US claims database actually received the formulation.

That means the GRADE trial “is almost meaningless. It doesn’t reflect real-world practice,” Dr. Ross noted.

Results from the three demonstration projects “highlight the gaps we still have,” summed up Dr. Kroetsch. “They show where we need better data” from observational sources that function as well as data from RCTs.

Still, the demonstration project results are “an important step forward in establishing the validity of real-world evidence,” commented David Kerr, MBChB, an endocrinologist and director of research and innovation at the Sansum Diabetes Research Institute in Santa Barbara, Calif.
 

‘Target trials’ tether RWE

The target trial approach to designing an observational study is a key tool for boosting reliability and applicability of the results. The idea is to create a well-designed trial that could be the basis for a conventional RCT, and then use observational data to flesh out the target trial instead of collecting data from prospectively enrolled patients.

Designing observational studies that emulate target trials allows causal inferences, said Miguel A. Hernán, MD, DrPH, a professor of biostatistics and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. Plugging real-world data into the framework of an appropriately designed target trial substantially cuts the risk of a biased analysis, he explained during the workshop.

However, the approach has limitations. The target trial must be a pragmatic trial, and the approach does not work for placebo-controlled trials, although it can accommodate a usual-care control arm. It also usually precludes patient blinding, testing treatments not used in routine practice, and close monitoring of patients in ways that are uncommon in usual care.

The target trial approach received broad endorsement during the workshop as the future for observational studies destined for efficacy consideration by the FDA.

“The idea of prespecifying a target trial is a really fantastic place to start,” commented Robert Ball, MD, deputy director of the FDA Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. “There is still a whole set of questions once the trial is prespecified, but prespecification would be a fantastic step forward,” he said during the workshop.

Participants also endorsed other important steps to boost the value of observational studies for regulatory reviews, including preregistering the study on a site such as clinicaltrials.gov; being fully transparent about the origins of observational data; using data that match the needs of the target trial; not reviewing the data in advance to avoid cherry picking and gaming the analysis; and reporting neutral or negative results when they occur, something often not currently done for observational analyses.

But although there was clear progress and much agreement among thought leaders at the workshop, FDA representatives stressed caution in moving forward.
 

“No easy answer”

“With more experience, we can learn what works and what doesn’t work in generating valid results from observational studies,” said Dr. Concato. “Although the observational results have upside potential, we need to learn more. There is no easy answer, no checklist for fit-for-use data, no off-the-shelf study design, and no ideal analytic method.”

Dr. Concato acknowledged that the FDA’s goal is clear given the 2016 legislation. “The FDA is embracing our obligations under the 21st Century Cures Act to evaluate use of real-world data and real-world evidence.”

He also suggested that researchers “shy away from a false dichotomy of RCTs or observational studies and instead think about how and when RCTs and observational studies can be designed and conducted to yield trustworthy results.” Dr. Concato’s solution: “a taxonomy of interventional or noninterventional studies.”

“The FDA is under enormous pressure to embrace real-world evidence, both because of the economics of running RCTs and because of the availability of new observational data from electronic health records, wearable devices, claims, etc.,” said Dr. Kerr, who did not participate in the workshop but coauthored an editorial that calls for using real-world data in regulatory decisions for drugs and devices for diabetes. These factors create an “irresistible force” spurring the FDA to consider observational, noninterventional data.

“I think the FDA really wants this to go forward,” Dr. Kerr added in an interview. “The FDA keeps telling us that clinical trials do not have enough women or patients from minority groups. Real-world data is a way to address that. This will not be the death of RCTs, but this work shines a light on the deficiencies of RCTs and how the deficiencies can be dealt with.”

Dr. Kroetsch has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Schneeweiss has reported being a consultant to and holding equity in Aetion and receiving research funding from the FDA. Dr. Ross has reported receiving research funding from the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic. Dr. Hernán has reported being a consultant for Cytel. Dr. Kerr has reported being a consultant for Ascensia, EOFlow, Lifecare, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, and Voluntis. Dr. Temple, Dr. Concato, and Dr. Ball are FDA employees.

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

The more complicated a primary endpoint, the greater a puzzle it can be for clinicians to interpret the results. It’s likely even tougher for patients, who don’t help choose the events studied in clinical trials yet are increasingly sharing in the management decisions they influence.

That creates an opening for a more patient-centered take on one of cardiology’s most influential recent studies, ISCHEMIA, which bolsters the case for conservative, med-oriented management over a more invasive initial strategy for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and positive stress tests, researchers said.

The new, prespecified analysis replaced the trial’s conventional primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) with one based on “days alive out of hospital” (DAOH) and found an early advantage for the conservative approach, with caveats.

Those assigned to the conservative arm benefited with more out-of-hospital days throughout the next 2 years than those in the invasive-management group, owing to the latter’s protocol-mandated early cath-lab work-up with possible revascularization. The difference averaged more than 6 days for much of that time.

But DAOH evened out for the two groups by the fourth year in the analysis of more than 5,000 patients.

Protocol-determined cath procedures accounted for 61% of hospitalizations in the invasively managed group. A secondary DAOH analysis that excluded such required hospital days, also prespecified, showed no meaningful difference between the two strategies over the 4 years, noted the report published online May 3 in JAMA Cardiology.
 

DOAH is ‘very, very important’

The DAOH metric has been a far less common consideration in clinical trials, compared with clinical events, yet in some ways it is as “hard” a metric as mortality, encompasses a broader range of outcomes, and may matter more to patients, it’s been argued.

“The thing patients most value is time at home. So they don’t want to be in the hospital, they don’t want to be away from friends, they want to do recreation, or they may want to work,” lead author Harvey D. White, DSc, Green Lane Cardiovascular Services, Auckland (New Zealand) City Hospital, University of Auckland, told this news organization.

“When we need to talk to patients – and we do need to talk to patients – to have a days-out-of-hospital metric is very, very important,” he said. It is not only patient focused, it’s “meaningful in terms of the seriousness of events,” in that length of hospitalization tracks with clinical severity, observed Dr. White, who is slated to present the analysis May 17 during the virtual American College of Cardiology 2021 scientific sessions.

As previously reported, ISCHEMIA showed no significant effect on the primary endpoint of cardiovascular mortality, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest by assignment group over a median 3.2 years. Angina and quality of life measures were improved for patients in the invasive arm.

With an invasive initial strategy, “What we know now is that you get nothing of an advantage in terms of the composite endpoint, and you’re going to spend 6 days more in the hospital in the first 2 years, for largely no benefit,” Dr. White said.

That outlook may apply out to 4 years, the analysis suggests, but could conceivably change if DAOH is reassessed later as the ISCHEMIA follow-up continues for what is now a planned total of 10 years.

Meanwhile, the current findings could enhance doctor-patient discussions about the trade-offs between the two strategies for individuals whose considerations will vary.

“This is a very helpful measure to understand the burden of an approach to the patient,” observed E. Magnus Ohman, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was not involved in the trial.

With DAOH as an endpoint, “you as a clinician get another aspect of understanding of a treatment’s impact on a multitude of endpoints.” Days out of hospital, he noted, encompasses the effects of clinical events that often go into composite clinical endpoints – not death, but including nonfatal MI, stroke, need for revascularization, and cardiovascular hospitalization.

To patients with stable CAD who ask whether the invasive approach has merits in their case, the DAOH finding “helps you to say, well, at the end of the day, you will probably be spending an equal amount of time in the hospital. Your price up front is a little bit higher, but over time, the group who gets conservative treatment will catch up.”

The DAOH outcome also avoids the limitations of an endpoint based on time to first event, “not the least of which,” said Dr. White, is that it counts only the first of what might be multiple events of varying clinical impact. Misleadingly, “you can have an event that’s a small troponin rise, but that becomes more important in a person than dying the next day.”

The DAOH analysis was based on 5,179 patients from 37 countries who averaged 64 years of age and of whom 23% were women. The endpoint considered only overnight stays in hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, rehabilitation centers, and nursing homes.

There were many more hospital or extended care facility stays overall in the invasive-management group, 4,002 versus 1,897 for those following the conservative strategy (P < .001), but the numbers flipped after excluding protocol-assigned procedures: 1,568 stays in the invasive group, compared with 1,897 (P = .001)

There were no associations between DAOH and Seattle Angina Questionnaire 7–Angina Frequency scores or DAOH interactions by age, sex, geographic region, or whether the patient had diabetes, prior MI, or heart failure, the report notes.

The primary ISCHEMIA analysis hinted at a possible long-term advantage for the invasive initial strategy in that event curves for the two arms crossed after 2-3 years, Dr. Ohman observed.

Based on that, for younger patients with stable CAD and ischemia at stress testing, “an investment of more hospital days early on might be worth it in the long run.” But ISCHEMIA, he said, “only suggests it, it doesn’t confirm it.”

The study was supported in part by grants from Arbor Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca. Devices or medications were provided by Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Arbor, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Phillips, Omron Healthcare, and Sunovion. Dr. White disclosed receiving grants paid to his institution and fees for serving on a steering committee from Sanofi-Aventis, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, Omthera, American Regent, Eisai, DalCor, CSL Behring, Sanofi-Aventis Australia, and Esperion Therapeutics, and personal fees from Genentech and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reported receiving grants from Abiomed and Cheisi USA, and consulting for Abiomed, Cara Therapeutics, Chiesi USA, Cytokinetics, Imbria Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, and XyloCor Therapeutics.
 

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

The more complicated a primary endpoint, the greater a puzzle it can be for clinicians to interpret the results. It’s likely even tougher for patients, who don’t help choose the events studied in clinical trials yet are increasingly sharing in the management decisions they influence.

That creates an opening for a more patient-centered take on one of cardiology’s most influential recent studies, ISCHEMIA, which bolsters the case for conservative, med-oriented management over a more invasive initial strategy for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and positive stress tests, researchers said.

The new, prespecified analysis replaced the trial’s conventional primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) with one based on “days alive out of hospital” (DAOH) and found an early advantage for the conservative approach, with caveats.

Those assigned to the conservative arm benefited with more out-of-hospital days throughout the next 2 years than those in the invasive-management group, owing to the latter’s protocol-mandated early cath-lab work-up with possible revascularization. The difference averaged more than 6 days for much of that time.

But DAOH evened out for the two groups by the fourth year in the analysis of more than 5,000 patients.

Protocol-determined cath procedures accounted for 61% of hospitalizations in the invasively managed group. A secondary DAOH analysis that excluded such required hospital days, also prespecified, showed no meaningful difference between the two strategies over the 4 years, noted the report published online May 3 in JAMA Cardiology.
 

DOAH is ‘very, very important’

The DAOH metric has been a far less common consideration in clinical trials, compared with clinical events, yet in some ways it is as “hard” a metric as mortality, encompasses a broader range of outcomes, and may matter more to patients, it’s been argued.

“The thing patients most value is time at home. So they don’t want to be in the hospital, they don’t want to be away from friends, they want to do recreation, or they may want to work,” lead author Harvey D. White, DSc, Green Lane Cardiovascular Services, Auckland (New Zealand) City Hospital, University of Auckland, told this news organization.

“When we need to talk to patients – and we do need to talk to patients – to have a days-out-of-hospital metric is very, very important,” he said. It is not only patient focused, it’s “meaningful in terms of the seriousness of events,” in that length of hospitalization tracks with clinical severity, observed Dr. White, who is slated to present the analysis May 17 during the virtual American College of Cardiology 2021 scientific sessions.

As previously reported, ISCHEMIA showed no significant effect on the primary endpoint of cardiovascular mortality, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest by assignment group over a median 3.2 years. Angina and quality of life measures were improved for patients in the invasive arm.

With an invasive initial strategy, “What we know now is that you get nothing of an advantage in terms of the composite endpoint, and you’re going to spend 6 days more in the hospital in the first 2 years, for largely no benefit,” Dr. White said.

That outlook may apply out to 4 years, the analysis suggests, but could conceivably change if DAOH is reassessed later as the ISCHEMIA follow-up continues for what is now a planned total of 10 years.

Meanwhile, the current findings could enhance doctor-patient discussions about the trade-offs between the two strategies for individuals whose considerations will vary.

“This is a very helpful measure to understand the burden of an approach to the patient,” observed E. Magnus Ohman, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was not involved in the trial.

With DAOH as an endpoint, “you as a clinician get another aspect of understanding of a treatment’s impact on a multitude of endpoints.” Days out of hospital, he noted, encompasses the effects of clinical events that often go into composite clinical endpoints – not death, but including nonfatal MI, stroke, need for revascularization, and cardiovascular hospitalization.

To patients with stable CAD who ask whether the invasive approach has merits in their case, the DAOH finding “helps you to say, well, at the end of the day, you will probably be spending an equal amount of time in the hospital. Your price up front is a little bit higher, but over time, the group who gets conservative treatment will catch up.”

The DAOH outcome also avoids the limitations of an endpoint based on time to first event, “not the least of which,” said Dr. White, is that it counts only the first of what might be multiple events of varying clinical impact. Misleadingly, “you can have an event that’s a small troponin rise, but that becomes more important in a person than dying the next day.”

The DAOH analysis was based on 5,179 patients from 37 countries who averaged 64 years of age and of whom 23% were women. The endpoint considered only overnight stays in hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, rehabilitation centers, and nursing homes.

There were many more hospital or extended care facility stays overall in the invasive-management group, 4,002 versus 1,897 for those following the conservative strategy (P < .001), but the numbers flipped after excluding protocol-assigned procedures: 1,568 stays in the invasive group, compared with 1,897 (P = .001)

There were no associations between DAOH and Seattle Angina Questionnaire 7–Angina Frequency scores or DAOH interactions by age, sex, geographic region, or whether the patient had diabetes, prior MI, or heart failure, the report notes.

The primary ISCHEMIA analysis hinted at a possible long-term advantage for the invasive initial strategy in that event curves for the two arms crossed after 2-3 years, Dr. Ohman observed.

Based on that, for younger patients with stable CAD and ischemia at stress testing, “an investment of more hospital days early on might be worth it in the long run.” But ISCHEMIA, he said, “only suggests it, it doesn’t confirm it.”

The study was supported in part by grants from Arbor Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca. Devices or medications were provided by Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Arbor, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Phillips, Omron Healthcare, and Sunovion. Dr. White disclosed receiving grants paid to his institution and fees for serving on a steering committee from Sanofi-Aventis, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, Omthera, American Regent, Eisai, DalCor, CSL Behring, Sanofi-Aventis Australia, and Esperion Therapeutics, and personal fees from Genentech and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reported receiving grants from Abiomed and Cheisi USA, and consulting for Abiomed, Cara Therapeutics, Chiesi USA, Cytokinetics, Imbria Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, and XyloCor Therapeutics.
 

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

The more complicated a primary endpoint, the greater a puzzle it can be for clinicians to interpret the results. It’s likely even tougher for patients, who don’t help choose the events studied in clinical trials yet are increasingly sharing in the management decisions they influence.

That creates an opening for a more patient-centered take on one of cardiology’s most influential recent studies, ISCHEMIA, which bolsters the case for conservative, med-oriented management over a more invasive initial strategy for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and positive stress tests, researchers said.

The new, prespecified analysis replaced the trial’s conventional primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) with one based on “days alive out of hospital” (DAOH) and found an early advantage for the conservative approach, with caveats.

Those assigned to the conservative arm benefited with more out-of-hospital days throughout the next 2 years than those in the invasive-management group, owing to the latter’s protocol-mandated early cath-lab work-up with possible revascularization. The difference averaged more than 6 days for much of that time.

But DAOH evened out for the two groups by the fourth year in the analysis of more than 5,000 patients.

Protocol-determined cath procedures accounted for 61% of hospitalizations in the invasively managed group. A secondary DAOH analysis that excluded such required hospital days, also prespecified, showed no meaningful difference between the two strategies over the 4 years, noted the report published online May 3 in JAMA Cardiology.
 

DOAH is ‘very, very important’

The DAOH metric has been a far less common consideration in clinical trials, compared with clinical events, yet in some ways it is as “hard” a metric as mortality, encompasses a broader range of outcomes, and may matter more to patients, it’s been argued.

“The thing patients most value is time at home. So they don’t want to be in the hospital, they don’t want to be away from friends, they want to do recreation, or they may want to work,” lead author Harvey D. White, DSc, Green Lane Cardiovascular Services, Auckland (New Zealand) City Hospital, University of Auckland, told this news organization.

“When we need to talk to patients – and we do need to talk to patients – to have a days-out-of-hospital metric is very, very important,” he said. It is not only patient focused, it’s “meaningful in terms of the seriousness of events,” in that length of hospitalization tracks with clinical severity, observed Dr. White, who is slated to present the analysis May 17 during the virtual American College of Cardiology 2021 scientific sessions.

As previously reported, ISCHEMIA showed no significant effect on the primary endpoint of cardiovascular mortality, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest by assignment group over a median 3.2 years. Angina and quality of life measures were improved for patients in the invasive arm.

With an invasive initial strategy, “What we know now is that you get nothing of an advantage in terms of the composite endpoint, and you’re going to spend 6 days more in the hospital in the first 2 years, for largely no benefit,” Dr. White said.

That outlook may apply out to 4 years, the analysis suggests, but could conceivably change if DAOH is reassessed later as the ISCHEMIA follow-up continues for what is now a planned total of 10 years.

Meanwhile, the current findings could enhance doctor-patient discussions about the trade-offs between the two strategies for individuals whose considerations will vary.

“This is a very helpful measure to understand the burden of an approach to the patient,” observed E. Magnus Ohman, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was not involved in the trial.

With DAOH as an endpoint, “you as a clinician get another aspect of understanding of a treatment’s impact on a multitude of endpoints.” Days out of hospital, he noted, encompasses the effects of clinical events that often go into composite clinical endpoints – not death, but including nonfatal MI, stroke, need for revascularization, and cardiovascular hospitalization.

To patients with stable CAD who ask whether the invasive approach has merits in their case, the DAOH finding “helps you to say, well, at the end of the day, you will probably be spending an equal amount of time in the hospital. Your price up front is a little bit higher, but over time, the group who gets conservative treatment will catch up.”

The DAOH outcome also avoids the limitations of an endpoint based on time to first event, “not the least of which,” said Dr. White, is that it counts only the first of what might be multiple events of varying clinical impact. Misleadingly, “you can have an event that’s a small troponin rise, but that becomes more important in a person than dying the next day.”

The DAOH analysis was based on 5,179 patients from 37 countries who averaged 64 years of age and of whom 23% were women. The endpoint considered only overnight stays in hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, rehabilitation centers, and nursing homes.

There were many more hospital or extended care facility stays overall in the invasive-management group, 4,002 versus 1,897 for those following the conservative strategy (P < .001), but the numbers flipped after excluding protocol-assigned procedures: 1,568 stays in the invasive group, compared with 1,897 (P = .001)

There were no associations between DAOH and Seattle Angina Questionnaire 7–Angina Frequency scores or DAOH interactions by age, sex, geographic region, or whether the patient had diabetes, prior MI, or heart failure, the report notes.

The primary ISCHEMIA analysis hinted at a possible long-term advantage for the invasive initial strategy in that event curves for the two arms crossed after 2-3 years, Dr. Ohman observed.

Based on that, for younger patients with stable CAD and ischemia at stress testing, “an investment of more hospital days early on might be worth it in the long run.” But ISCHEMIA, he said, “only suggests it, it doesn’t confirm it.”

The study was supported in part by grants from Arbor Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca. Devices or medications were provided by Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Arbor, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Phillips, Omron Healthcare, and Sunovion. Dr. White disclosed receiving grants paid to his institution and fees for serving on a steering committee from Sanofi-Aventis, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, Omthera, American Regent, Eisai, DalCor, CSL Behring, Sanofi-Aventis Australia, and Esperion Therapeutics, and personal fees from Genentech and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reported receiving grants from Abiomed and Cheisi USA, and consulting for Abiomed, Cara Therapeutics, Chiesi USA, Cytokinetics, Imbria Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, and XyloCor Therapeutics.
 

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

Survival gains in the management of acute myocardial infarction in recent decades don’t apply to one increasingly common category of MI.

Type 2 MI, triggered by a surge in myocardial oxygen demand or a drop in its supply, is on the rise and might be more prognostically serious than the “classic” atherothrombotic type 1 form, for which there have been such impressive strides in therapy.

Strategies for assessing and treating type 2 MI and another condition it can resemble clinically – nonischemic myocardial injury – have been less rigorously explored and are far less settled.

That could be partly because recent iterations of the consensus-based universal definition of MI define type 1 MI primarily by the atherothrombotic process, whereas “demand” type 2 MI is characterized as secondary to other disorders. The list of potential primary conditions, cardiac and noncardiac, is long.

As a result, patients with type 1 MI are clinically well defined, but those with type 2 MI have so far defied efforts to be clinically characterized in a consistent way. However, recent efforts might change that, given growing appreciation that all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality outcomes are actually worse for patients with type 2 MI.

“That’s because we have lots of treatments for type 1 MI. Type 2 and myocardial injury? We don’t know how to treat them,” David E. Newby, MD, PhD, University of Edinburgh, said in an interview.

Dr. Newby pointed to a widely cited 2018 publication, of which he is a coauthor, documenting 5-year outcomes of 2,122 patients with type 1 MI, type 2 MI, or nonischemic myocardial injury per the newly minted fourth universal definition.

Risk-factor profiles for patients with the latter two conditions contrasted with those of patients with type 1 MI, he observed. They were “a lot older,” were less likely to be smokers, had more hypertension and previous stroke, and a less prominent CV family history.

“So they’re a different beast,” Dr. Newby said. And their prognosis tended to be worse: all-cause mortality was about 62% for patients with type 2 MI and 72% with nonischemic myocardial injury, but only 37% for patients with type 1 MI. The difference between the two types of infarction was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death after type 2 MI.

Mortality in patients with type 2 MI is “quite high, but it may well be a marker of the fact that you’ve got other serious diseases on board that are associated with poorer outcome,” he said.
 

Risk varies

The degree of risk in type 2 MI seems to vary with the underlying condition, a recent cohort study suggests. In about 3,800 patients with cardiac troponin (cTn) elevations qualifying as MI – a younger group; most were in their 30s and 40s – mortality at 10 years was 12% for those with type 1 MI, but 34% for those with type 2 MI and 46% for the remainder with nonischemic myocardial injury.

Underlying precipitating conditions varied widely among the patients with type 2 MI or nonischemic myocardial injury, and there was broad variation in mortality by etiology among those with type 2 MI. Sepsis and anemia entailed some of the highest risk, and hypertension and arrhythmias some of the lowest.

A prospective, community-based study of 5,460 patients with type 1 MI or type 2 MI reached a similar conclusion, but with a twist. Five-year all-cause mortality contrasted significantly between types of MI at 31% and 52%, respectively, but CV mortality rates were similar in this study.

Mortality in type 2 MI again varied by the precipitating etiology, suggesting that patients can be risk stratified according to pathophysiological mechanism behind their demand infarction, the authors concluded, “underscoring that type 2 MI is not a single entity, rather a group of phenotypic clusters.”

The usually high comorbidity burden and CV risk in patients with type 2 MI, one of those authors said in an interview, suggest there are “opportunities to see whether we can reduce that risk.”

Formal recommendations consistently say that, in patients with type 2 MI, “your first and foremost target should be to treat the underlying trigger and cause,” said Yader Sandoval, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. That means such opportunities for further CV risk reduction tend to be “underappreciated.”

“In principle, treating the inciting cause of type 2 MI or the injury is important,” said James L. Januzzi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an interview, “but I feel quite strongly that there must be more that we can do for these folks.”

Dr. Januzzi is senior author on a recent analysis based on more than 200,000 admissions across the United States that saw a 43% lower risk for in-hospital death and 54% lower risk for 30-day MI readmission for patients with type 2 MI than those with type 1, adjusted for risk factors and comorbidities.

But, “it is important to emphasize that type 2 MI patients had a substantial risk for adverse outcome, nonetheless, and lack a clear management approach,” Dr. Januzzi and colleagues stated in their publication, as reported by this news organization.

“Due to the high rates of long-term cardiovascular events experienced by the frequently encountered type 2 MI patients,” they wrote, “identifying evidence-based therapies represents a major unmet need.”

That such patients tend to be sick with multiple comorbidities and have not yet been clinically well characterized, Dr. Januzzi said, “has stymied our ability to develop a treatment strategy.”
 

Role of the universal definitions

That challenge might in some ways be complicated by the universal definition, especially version 4, in which the definitions for type 1 MI, type 2 MI, and nonischemic myocardial injury are unified biochemically.

This version, published in 2018 in the European Heart Journal and Circulation, introduced a formal definition of myocardial injury, which was hailed as an innovation: cTn elevation to the 99th percentile of the upper limit of normal in a reference population.

It differentiates type 1 MI from type 2 MI by the separate pathophysiology of the ischemia – plaque rupture with intracoronary thrombosis and myocardial oxygen supply–demand mismatch, respectively. In both cases, however, there must be symptoms or objective evidence of ischemia. Absent signs of ischemia, the determination would be nonischemic myocardial injury.

Yet clinically and prognostically, type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury in some ways are more similar to each other than either is to type 1 MI. Both occur secondary to other conditions across diverse clinical settings and can be a challenge to tell apart.

The universal definition’s perspective of the three events – so heavily dependent on cTn levels and myocardial ischemia – fails to account for the myriad complexities of individual patients in practice, some say, and so can muddle the process of risk assessment and therapy.

“Abnormal troponin identifies injury, but it doesn’t identify mechanism. Type 2 MI is highly prevalent, but there are other things that cause abnormal troponins,” Dr. Januzzi said. That’s why it’s important to explore and map out the clinical variables associated with the two conditions, to “understand who has a type 2 MI and who has cardiac injury. And believe it or not, it’s actually harder than it sounds to sort that out.”

“Practically speaking, the differentiation between these events is clinical,” Dr. Sandoval agreed. “There’s not always perfect agreement on what we’re calling what.”

Consequently, the universal definitions might categorize some events in ways that seem inconsistent from a management perspective. For example, they make a sharp distinction between coronary atherothrombotic and coronary nonatherothrombotic MI etiologies. Some clinicians would group MI caused by coronary spasm, coronary embolism, or spontaneous coronary artery dissection along with MI from coronary plaque rupture and thrombosis. But, Dr. Sandoval said, “even though these are coronary issues, they would fall into the type 2 bin.”

Also, about half of cases identified as type 2 MI are caused by tachyarrhythmias, which can elevate troponin and cause ECG changes and possibly symptoms resembling angina, Dr. Newby observed. “But that is completely different from other types of myocardial infarction, which are much more serious.”

So, “it’s a real mess of a diagnosis – acute myocardial injury, type 2 and type 1 MI – and it can be quite difficult to disentangle,” he said. “I think that the definition certainly has let us down.”

The diversity of type 2 MI clinical settings might also be a challenge. Myocardial injury according to cTn, with or without ischemia, occurs widely during critical illnesses and acute conditions, including respiratory distress, sepsis, internal bleeding, stroke, and pulmonary embolism.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, much was made of elevated troponin levels and myocarditis as an apparently frequent complication among hospitalized patients. “I raised my hand and said, we’ve been seeing abnormal troponins in people with influenza for 20 years,” Dr. Januzzi said. “Critical illness, infection, toxicity from drugs, from chemotherapy, from alcohol – there are all sorts of potential triggers of myocardial injury.”
 

Troponin ‘overdependence’

With many clinical settings in common and the presence or absence of myocardial ischemia to primarily distinguish them, type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury both can be mistaken for the other. That can send management decisions in inappropriate directions.

A 2019 study looked at 633 cases that had been coded as type 2 MI at a major center and readjudicated them according to the fourth universal definition. Only 57% met all the type 2 criteria, 42% were reclassified as nonischemic myocardial injury, and a few were determined to have unstable angina.

“There’s overdependence on the easiest tool in the universal definition,” said Dr. Januzzi, a coauthor on that study. “Frequently people get seduced by the rise in a troponin value and immediately call it a myocardial infarction, lacking the other components of the universal definition that require evidence for coronary ischemia. That happens every day, where someone with an abnormal troponin is incorrectly branded as having an MI.”

It may not help that the current ICD-10-CM system features a diagnostic code for type 2 MI but not for myocardial injury.

“Instead, the new ICD-10-CM coding includes a proxy called ‘non-MI troponin elevation due to an underlying cause,’ ” wrote Kristian Thygesen, MD, DSc, and Allan S. Jaffe, MD, in a recent editorial. They caution against “using this code for myocardial injury because it is not specific for an elevated cTn value and could represent any abnormal laboratory measurements.” The code could be “misleading,” thereby worsening the potential for miscoding and “misattribution of MI diagnoses.”

That potential suggests there could be a growing population of patients who have been told they had an MI, which then becomes part of their medical record, when, actually, they experienced nonischemic myocardial injury.

“Having seen this occur,” Dr. Januzzi explained, “it affects people emotionally to think they’ve had an MI. Precision in diagnosis is important, which is why the universal definition is so valuable. If people would adhere to it more assiduously, we could reduce the frequency of people getting a misdiagnosis of MI when in fact they had injury.”

Still, he added, “if someone has an illness severe enough to cause myocardial injury, they’re at risk for a bad outcome regardless of whether they did or didn’t have an MI.”
 

The uncertain role of angiography

Angiography isn’t ordered nearly as often for patients ultimately diagnosed with type 2 MI or myocardial injury as for those with type 1 MI. Type 2 MI can hit some patients who have remained symptom free despite possibly unrecognized obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) when myocardial demand is pushed past supply by a critical illness, tachyarrhythmia, or other acute conditions.

In such cases, “it’s reasonable to hypothesize that revascularization, something that really is not done in the vast majority of patients with type 2 MI, might actually be of benefit,” Dr. Januzzi said.

Whether these patients should routinely have angiography remains an open question. Without intervention, any newly identified obstructive CAD would continue to lurk in the background as a potential threat.

In efforts to differentiate type 2 MI from nonischemic injury, it can be “incredibly hard to know whether or not there’s actual ischemia in the mix. And that’s the only thing that defines the difference before taking an angiogram,” Derek P. Chew, MBBS, MPH, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia, said in an interview.

Dr. Chew is principal investigator for the ongoing ACT-2 trial that is enrolling hospitalized, hemodynamically stable patients with cTn elevations but no suspicion of type 1 MI and “an unequivocal acute intercurrent diagnosis.” Qualifying diagnoses are prespecified on a list that includes sepsis, pneumonia, septicemia, a systemic inflammatory response, anemia, atrial tachycardia, acute kidney injury, and recent noncardiac surgery.

The patients are randomly assigned to a strategy of routine, usually invasive coronary angiography with discretionary revascularization, or to conservative care with noninvasive functional testing as appropriate. The sicker the patient, the greater the competing risk from other conditions and the less revascularization is likely to improve outcomes, Dr. Chew observed. Importantly, therefore, outcomes in the trial will be stratified by patient risk from comorbidities, measured with baseline GRACE and APACHE III scores.

Dr. Chew said the study aims to determine whether routine angiography is of benefit in patients at some identifiable level of risk, if not the whole range. One possible result, he said, is that there could be a risk-profile “sweet spot” associated with better outcomes in those assigned to angiography.

Enrollment in the trial started about 3 years ago, but “the process has been slow,” he said, because many potentially referring clinicians have a “bias on one side or another,” with about half of them preferring the angiography approach and the other half conservative management.
 

The unsettled role of drug therapy

With their often-complicated clinical profile, patients with type 2 MI or nonischemic myocardial injury tend to be medically undertreated, yet there is observational evidence they can benefit from familiar drug therapies.

In the previously noted cohort study of 3,800 younger patients with one of the three forms of myocardial injury, less than half of patients with type 2 MI received any form of CAD secondary prevention therapy at discharge, the researchers, with first author Avinainder Singh, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn, wrote.

The finding, consistent with Dr. Newby’s study from 2018, suggests that “categorizing the type of MI in young subjects might inform long-term cardiovascular prognosis,” and “emphasizes the need to identify and implement secondary prevention strategies to mitigate the high rate of cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 MI,” they concluded.

Further, outcomes varied with the number of discharge CV meds in an older cohort of patients with myocardial injury. Those with type 2 MI or acute or chronic nonischemic myocardial injury were far less likely than patients with type 1 MI to be prescribed guideline-based drugs. Survival was greater for those on two or three classes of CV medications, compared with one or none, in patients with acute or chronic nonischemic injury.

The investigators urged that patients with nonischemic myocardial injury or type 2 MI “be treated with cardiovascular medication to a larger degree than what is done today.”

When there is documented CAD in patients with type 2 MI, “it would be reasonable to suggest that preventative secondary prevention approaches, such as such lipid-reduction therapy or aspirin, would be beneficial,” Dr. Sandoval said. “But the reality is, there are no randomized trials, there are no prospective studies. ACT-2 is one of the few and early studies that’s really trying to address this.”

“The great majority of these people are not going to the cath lab, but when they do, there seems to be a signal of potential benefit,” Dr. Januzzi said. “For someone with a type 2 MI, it’s quite possible revascularization might help. Then more long-term treatment with medications that are proven in randomized trials to reduce risk would be a very plausible intervention.”

“We’ve actually proposed a number of potential therapeutic interventions to explore, both in people with type 2 MI and in people with injury without MI,” he said. “They might include sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. They might include antithrombotic therapy or more aggressive lipid lowering, possibly for the pleiotropic effects rather than the effects on atherosclerosis.”

Any such therapies that prove successful in well-designed trials could well earn both type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury, neglected as disorders in their own right, the kind of respect in clinical care pathways that they likely deserve.

Dr. Newby has disclosed receiving consulting fees or honoraria from Eli Lilly, Roche, Toshiba, Jansen, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, CellProthera, and Oncoarendi; and conducting research or receiving grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Inositec. Sandoval reports serving on an advisory board and as a speaker for Abbott Diagnostics and on an advisory board for Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi has disclosed receiving grant support from Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, and Innolife; consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Janssen, Novartis, Quidel, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on endpoint committees or data safety monitoring boards for trials supported by Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, CVRx, Janssen, MyoKardia, and Takeda. Dr. Chew has reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca and Edwards Life Sciences. ACT-2 is sponsored by the National Medical and Health Research Council of Australia.

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

Survival gains in the management of acute myocardial infarction in recent decades don’t apply to one increasingly common category of MI.

Type 2 MI, triggered by a surge in myocardial oxygen demand or a drop in its supply, is on the rise and might be more prognostically serious than the “classic” atherothrombotic type 1 form, for which there have been such impressive strides in therapy.

Strategies for assessing and treating type 2 MI and another condition it can resemble clinically – nonischemic myocardial injury – have been less rigorously explored and are far less settled.

That could be partly because recent iterations of the consensus-based universal definition of MI define type 1 MI primarily by the atherothrombotic process, whereas “demand” type 2 MI is characterized as secondary to other disorders. The list of potential primary conditions, cardiac and noncardiac, is long.

As a result, patients with type 1 MI are clinically well defined, but those with type 2 MI have so far defied efforts to be clinically characterized in a consistent way. However, recent efforts might change that, given growing appreciation that all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality outcomes are actually worse for patients with type 2 MI.

“That’s because we have lots of treatments for type 1 MI. Type 2 and myocardial injury? We don’t know how to treat them,” David E. Newby, MD, PhD, University of Edinburgh, said in an interview.

Dr. Newby pointed to a widely cited 2018 publication, of which he is a coauthor, documenting 5-year outcomes of 2,122 patients with type 1 MI, type 2 MI, or nonischemic myocardial injury per the newly minted fourth universal definition.

Risk-factor profiles for patients with the latter two conditions contrasted with those of patients with type 1 MI, he observed. They were “a lot older,” were less likely to be smokers, had more hypertension and previous stroke, and a less prominent CV family history.

“So they’re a different beast,” Dr. Newby said. And their prognosis tended to be worse: all-cause mortality was about 62% for patients with type 2 MI and 72% with nonischemic myocardial injury, but only 37% for patients with type 1 MI. The difference between the two types of infarction was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death after type 2 MI.

Mortality in patients with type 2 MI is “quite high, but it may well be a marker of the fact that you’ve got other serious diseases on board that are associated with poorer outcome,” he said.
 

Risk varies

The degree of risk in type 2 MI seems to vary with the underlying condition, a recent cohort study suggests. In about 3,800 patients with cardiac troponin (cTn) elevations qualifying as MI – a younger group; most were in their 30s and 40s – mortality at 10 years was 12% for those with type 1 MI, but 34% for those with type 2 MI and 46% for the remainder with nonischemic myocardial injury.

Underlying precipitating conditions varied widely among the patients with type 2 MI or nonischemic myocardial injury, and there was broad variation in mortality by etiology among those with type 2 MI. Sepsis and anemia entailed some of the highest risk, and hypertension and arrhythmias some of the lowest.

A prospective, community-based study of 5,460 patients with type 1 MI or type 2 MI reached a similar conclusion, but with a twist. Five-year all-cause mortality contrasted significantly between types of MI at 31% and 52%, respectively, but CV mortality rates were similar in this study.

Mortality in type 2 MI again varied by the precipitating etiology, suggesting that patients can be risk stratified according to pathophysiological mechanism behind their demand infarction, the authors concluded, “underscoring that type 2 MI is not a single entity, rather a group of phenotypic clusters.”

The usually high comorbidity burden and CV risk in patients with type 2 MI, one of those authors said in an interview, suggest there are “opportunities to see whether we can reduce that risk.”

Formal recommendations consistently say that, in patients with type 2 MI, “your first and foremost target should be to treat the underlying trigger and cause,” said Yader Sandoval, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. That means such opportunities for further CV risk reduction tend to be “underappreciated.”

“In principle, treating the inciting cause of type 2 MI or the injury is important,” said James L. Januzzi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an interview, “but I feel quite strongly that there must be more that we can do for these folks.”

Dr. Januzzi is senior author on a recent analysis based on more than 200,000 admissions across the United States that saw a 43% lower risk for in-hospital death and 54% lower risk for 30-day MI readmission for patients with type 2 MI than those with type 1, adjusted for risk factors and comorbidities.

But, “it is important to emphasize that type 2 MI patients had a substantial risk for adverse outcome, nonetheless, and lack a clear management approach,” Dr. Januzzi and colleagues stated in their publication, as reported by this news organization.

“Due to the high rates of long-term cardiovascular events experienced by the frequently encountered type 2 MI patients,” they wrote, “identifying evidence-based therapies represents a major unmet need.”

That such patients tend to be sick with multiple comorbidities and have not yet been clinically well characterized, Dr. Januzzi said, “has stymied our ability to develop a treatment strategy.”
 

Role of the universal definitions

That challenge might in some ways be complicated by the universal definition, especially version 4, in which the definitions for type 1 MI, type 2 MI, and nonischemic myocardial injury are unified biochemically.

This version, published in 2018 in the European Heart Journal and Circulation, introduced a formal definition of myocardial injury, which was hailed as an innovation: cTn elevation to the 99th percentile of the upper limit of normal in a reference population.

It differentiates type 1 MI from type 2 MI by the separate pathophysiology of the ischemia – plaque rupture with intracoronary thrombosis and myocardial oxygen supply–demand mismatch, respectively. In both cases, however, there must be symptoms or objective evidence of ischemia. Absent signs of ischemia, the determination would be nonischemic myocardial injury.

Yet clinically and prognostically, type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury in some ways are more similar to each other than either is to type 1 MI. Both occur secondary to other conditions across diverse clinical settings and can be a challenge to tell apart.

The universal definition’s perspective of the three events – so heavily dependent on cTn levels and myocardial ischemia – fails to account for the myriad complexities of individual patients in practice, some say, and so can muddle the process of risk assessment and therapy.

“Abnormal troponin identifies injury, but it doesn’t identify mechanism. Type 2 MI is highly prevalent, but there are other things that cause abnormal troponins,” Dr. Januzzi said. That’s why it’s important to explore and map out the clinical variables associated with the two conditions, to “understand who has a type 2 MI and who has cardiac injury. And believe it or not, it’s actually harder than it sounds to sort that out.”

“Practically speaking, the differentiation between these events is clinical,” Dr. Sandoval agreed. “There’s not always perfect agreement on what we’re calling what.”

Consequently, the universal definitions might categorize some events in ways that seem inconsistent from a management perspective. For example, they make a sharp distinction between coronary atherothrombotic and coronary nonatherothrombotic MI etiologies. Some clinicians would group MI caused by coronary spasm, coronary embolism, or spontaneous coronary artery dissection along with MI from coronary plaque rupture and thrombosis. But, Dr. Sandoval said, “even though these are coronary issues, they would fall into the type 2 bin.”

Also, about half of cases identified as type 2 MI are caused by tachyarrhythmias, which can elevate troponin and cause ECG changes and possibly symptoms resembling angina, Dr. Newby observed. “But that is completely different from other types of myocardial infarction, which are much more serious.”

So, “it’s a real mess of a diagnosis – acute myocardial injury, type 2 and type 1 MI – and it can be quite difficult to disentangle,” he said. “I think that the definition certainly has let us down.”

The diversity of type 2 MI clinical settings might also be a challenge. Myocardial injury according to cTn, with or without ischemia, occurs widely during critical illnesses and acute conditions, including respiratory distress, sepsis, internal bleeding, stroke, and pulmonary embolism.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, much was made of elevated troponin levels and myocarditis as an apparently frequent complication among hospitalized patients. “I raised my hand and said, we’ve been seeing abnormal troponins in people with influenza for 20 years,” Dr. Januzzi said. “Critical illness, infection, toxicity from drugs, from chemotherapy, from alcohol – there are all sorts of potential triggers of myocardial injury.”
 

Troponin ‘overdependence’

With many clinical settings in common and the presence or absence of myocardial ischemia to primarily distinguish them, type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury both can be mistaken for the other. That can send management decisions in inappropriate directions.

A 2019 study looked at 633 cases that had been coded as type 2 MI at a major center and readjudicated them according to the fourth universal definition. Only 57% met all the type 2 criteria, 42% were reclassified as nonischemic myocardial injury, and a few were determined to have unstable angina.

“There’s overdependence on the easiest tool in the universal definition,” said Dr. Januzzi, a coauthor on that study. “Frequently people get seduced by the rise in a troponin value and immediately call it a myocardial infarction, lacking the other components of the universal definition that require evidence for coronary ischemia. That happens every day, where someone with an abnormal troponin is incorrectly branded as having an MI.”

It may not help that the current ICD-10-CM system features a diagnostic code for type 2 MI but not for myocardial injury.

“Instead, the new ICD-10-CM coding includes a proxy called ‘non-MI troponin elevation due to an underlying cause,’ ” wrote Kristian Thygesen, MD, DSc, and Allan S. Jaffe, MD, in a recent editorial. They caution against “using this code for myocardial injury because it is not specific for an elevated cTn value and could represent any abnormal laboratory measurements.” The code could be “misleading,” thereby worsening the potential for miscoding and “misattribution of MI diagnoses.”

That potential suggests there could be a growing population of patients who have been told they had an MI, which then becomes part of their medical record, when, actually, they experienced nonischemic myocardial injury.

“Having seen this occur,” Dr. Januzzi explained, “it affects people emotionally to think they’ve had an MI. Precision in diagnosis is important, which is why the universal definition is so valuable. If people would adhere to it more assiduously, we could reduce the frequency of people getting a misdiagnosis of MI when in fact they had injury.”

Still, he added, “if someone has an illness severe enough to cause myocardial injury, they’re at risk for a bad outcome regardless of whether they did or didn’t have an MI.”
 

The uncertain role of angiography

Angiography isn’t ordered nearly as often for patients ultimately diagnosed with type 2 MI or myocardial injury as for those with type 1 MI. Type 2 MI can hit some patients who have remained symptom free despite possibly unrecognized obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) when myocardial demand is pushed past supply by a critical illness, tachyarrhythmia, or other acute conditions.

In such cases, “it’s reasonable to hypothesize that revascularization, something that really is not done in the vast majority of patients with type 2 MI, might actually be of benefit,” Dr. Januzzi said.

Whether these patients should routinely have angiography remains an open question. Without intervention, any newly identified obstructive CAD would continue to lurk in the background as a potential threat.

In efforts to differentiate type 2 MI from nonischemic injury, it can be “incredibly hard to know whether or not there’s actual ischemia in the mix. And that’s the only thing that defines the difference before taking an angiogram,” Derek P. Chew, MBBS, MPH, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia, said in an interview.

Dr. Chew is principal investigator for the ongoing ACT-2 trial that is enrolling hospitalized, hemodynamically stable patients with cTn elevations but no suspicion of type 1 MI and “an unequivocal acute intercurrent diagnosis.” Qualifying diagnoses are prespecified on a list that includes sepsis, pneumonia, septicemia, a systemic inflammatory response, anemia, atrial tachycardia, acute kidney injury, and recent noncardiac surgery.

The patients are randomly assigned to a strategy of routine, usually invasive coronary angiography with discretionary revascularization, or to conservative care with noninvasive functional testing as appropriate. The sicker the patient, the greater the competing risk from other conditions and the less revascularization is likely to improve outcomes, Dr. Chew observed. Importantly, therefore, outcomes in the trial will be stratified by patient risk from comorbidities, measured with baseline GRACE and APACHE III scores.

Dr. Chew said the study aims to determine whether routine angiography is of benefit in patients at some identifiable level of risk, if not the whole range. One possible result, he said, is that there could be a risk-profile “sweet spot” associated with better outcomes in those assigned to angiography.

Enrollment in the trial started about 3 years ago, but “the process has been slow,” he said, because many potentially referring clinicians have a “bias on one side or another,” with about half of them preferring the angiography approach and the other half conservative management.
 

The unsettled role of drug therapy

With their often-complicated clinical profile, patients with type 2 MI or nonischemic myocardial injury tend to be medically undertreated, yet there is observational evidence they can benefit from familiar drug therapies.

In the previously noted cohort study of 3,800 younger patients with one of the three forms of myocardial injury, less than half of patients with type 2 MI received any form of CAD secondary prevention therapy at discharge, the researchers, with first author Avinainder Singh, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn, wrote.

The finding, consistent with Dr. Newby’s study from 2018, suggests that “categorizing the type of MI in young subjects might inform long-term cardiovascular prognosis,” and “emphasizes the need to identify and implement secondary prevention strategies to mitigate the high rate of cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 MI,” they concluded.

Further, outcomes varied with the number of discharge CV meds in an older cohort of patients with myocardial injury. Those with type 2 MI or acute or chronic nonischemic myocardial injury were far less likely than patients with type 1 MI to be prescribed guideline-based drugs. Survival was greater for those on two or three classes of CV medications, compared with one or none, in patients with acute or chronic nonischemic injury.

The investigators urged that patients with nonischemic myocardial injury or type 2 MI “be treated with cardiovascular medication to a larger degree than what is done today.”

When there is documented CAD in patients with type 2 MI, “it would be reasonable to suggest that preventative secondary prevention approaches, such as such lipid-reduction therapy or aspirin, would be beneficial,” Dr. Sandoval said. “But the reality is, there are no randomized trials, there are no prospective studies. ACT-2 is one of the few and early studies that’s really trying to address this.”

“The great majority of these people are not going to the cath lab, but when they do, there seems to be a signal of potential benefit,” Dr. Januzzi said. “For someone with a type 2 MI, it’s quite possible revascularization might help. Then more long-term treatment with medications that are proven in randomized trials to reduce risk would be a very plausible intervention.”

“We’ve actually proposed a number of potential therapeutic interventions to explore, both in people with type 2 MI and in people with injury without MI,” he said. “They might include sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. They might include antithrombotic therapy or more aggressive lipid lowering, possibly for the pleiotropic effects rather than the effects on atherosclerosis.”

Any such therapies that prove successful in well-designed trials could well earn both type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury, neglected as disorders in their own right, the kind of respect in clinical care pathways that they likely deserve.

Dr. Newby has disclosed receiving consulting fees or honoraria from Eli Lilly, Roche, Toshiba, Jansen, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, CellProthera, and Oncoarendi; and conducting research or receiving grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Inositec. Sandoval reports serving on an advisory board and as a speaker for Abbott Diagnostics and on an advisory board for Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi has disclosed receiving grant support from Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, and Innolife; consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Janssen, Novartis, Quidel, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on endpoint committees or data safety monitoring boards for trials supported by Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, CVRx, Janssen, MyoKardia, and Takeda. Dr. Chew has reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca and Edwards Life Sciences. ACT-2 is sponsored by the National Medical and Health Research Council of Australia.

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

Survival gains in the management of acute myocardial infarction in recent decades don’t apply to one increasingly common category of MI.

Type 2 MI, triggered by a surge in myocardial oxygen demand or a drop in its supply, is on the rise and might be more prognostically serious than the “classic” atherothrombotic type 1 form, for which there have been such impressive strides in therapy.

Strategies for assessing and treating type 2 MI and another condition it can resemble clinically – nonischemic myocardial injury – have been less rigorously explored and are far less settled.

That could be partly because recent iterations of the consensus-based universal definition of MI define type 1 MI primarily by the atherothrombotic process, whereas “demand” type 2 MI is characterized as secondary to other disorders. The list of potential primary conditions, cardiac and noncardiac, is long.

As a result, patients with type 1 MI are clinically well defined, but those with type 2 MI have so far defied efforts to be clinically characterized in a consistent way. However, recent efforts might change that, given growing appreciation that all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality outcomes are actually worse for patients with type 2 MI.

“That’s because we have lots of treatments for type 1 MI. Type 2 and myocardial injury? We don’t know how to treat them,” David E. Newby, MD, PhD, University of Edinburgh, said in an interview.

Dr. Newby pointed to a widely cited 2018 publication, of which he is a coauthor, documenting 5-year outcomes of 2,122 patients with type 1 MI, type 2 MI, or nonischemic myocardial injury per the newly minted fourth universal definition.

Risk-factor profiles for patients with the latter two conditions contrasted with those of patients with type 1 MI, he observed. They were “a lot older,” were less likely to be smokers, had more hypertension and previous stroke, and a less prominent CV family history.

“So they’re a different beast,” Dr. Newby said. And their prognosis tended to be worse: all-cause mortality was about 62% for patients with type 2 MI and 72% with nonischemic myocardial injury, but only 37% for patients with type 1 MI. The difference between the two types of infarction was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death after type 2 MI.

Mortality in patients with type 2 MI is “quite high, but it may well be a marker of the fact that you’ve got other serious diseases on board that are associated with poorer outcome,” he said.
 

Risk varies

The degree of risk in type 2 MI seems to vary with the underlying condition, a recent cohort study suggests. In about 3,800 patients with cardiac troponin (cTn) elevations qualifying as MI – a younger group; most were in their 30s and 40s – mortality at 10 years was 12% for those with type 1 MI, but 34% for those with type 2 MI and 46% for the remainder with nonischemic myocardial injury.

Underlying precipitating conditions varied widely among the patients with type 2 MI or nonischemic myocardial injury, and there was broad variation in mortality by etiology among those with type 2 MI. Sepsis and anemia entailed some of the highest risk, and hypertension and arrhythmias some of the lowest.

A prospective, community-based study of 5,460 patients with type 1 MI or type 2 MI reached a similar conclusion, but with a twist. Five-year all-cause mortality contrasted significantly between types of MI at 31% and 52%, respectively, but CV mortality rates were similar in this study.

Mortality in type 2 MI again varied by the precipitating etiology, suggesting that patients can be risk stratified according to pathophysiological mechanism behind their demand infarction, the authors concluded, “underscoring that type 2 MI is not a single entity, rather a group of phenotypic clusters.”

The usually high comorbidity burden and CV risk in patients with type 2 MI, one of those authors said in an interview, suggest there are “opportunities to see whether we can reduce that risk.”

Formal recommendations consistently say that, in patients with type 2 MI, “your first and foremost target should be to treat the underlying trigger and cause,” said Yader Sandoval, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. That means such opportunities for further CV risk reduction tend to be “underappreciated.”

“In principle, treating the inciting cause of type 2 MI or the injury is important,” said James L. Januzzi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an interview, “but I feel quite strongly that there must be more that we can do for these folks.”

Dr. Januzzi is senior author on a recent analysis based on more than 200,000 admissions across the United States that saw a 43% lower risk for in-hospital death and 54% lower risk for 30-day MI readmission for patients with type 2 MI than those with type 1, adjusted for risk factors and comorbidities.

But, “it is important to emphasize that type 2 MI patients had a substantial risk for adverse outcome, nonetheless, and lack a clear management approach,” Dr. Januzzi and colleagues stated in their publication, as reported by this news organization.

“Due to the high rates of long-term cardiovascular events experienced by the frequently encountered type 2 MI patients,” they wrote, “identifying evidence-based therapies represents a major unmet need.”

That such patients tend to be sick with multiple comorbidities and have not yet been clinically well characterized, Dr. Januzzi said, “has stymied our ability to develop a treatment strategy.”
 

Role of the universal definitions

That challenge might in some ways be complicated by the universal definition, especially version 4, in which the definitions for type 1 MI, type 2 MI, and nonischemic myocardial injury are unified biochemically.

This version, published in 2018 in the European Heart Journal and Circulation, introduced a formal definition of myocardial injury, which was hailed as an innovation: cTn elevation to the 99th percentile of the upper limit of normal in a reference population.

It differentiates type 1 MI from type 2 MI by the separate pathophysiology of the ischemia – plaque rupture with intracoronary thrombosis and myocardial oxygen supply–demand mismatch, respectively. In both cases, however, there must be symptoms or objective evidence of ischemia. Absent signs of ischemia, the determination would be nonischemic myocardial injury.

Yet clinically and prognostically, type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury in some ways are more similar to each other than either is to type 1 MI. Both occur secondary to other conditions across diverse clinical settings and can be a challenge to tell apart.

The universal definition’s perspective of the three events – so heavily dependent on cTn levels and myocardial ischemia – fails to account for the myriad complexities of individual patients in practice, some say, and so can muddle the process of risk assessment and therapy.

“Abnormal troponin identifies injury, but it doesn’t identify mechanism. Type 2 MI is highly prevalent, but there are other things that cause abnormal troponins,” Dr. Januzzi said. That’s why it’s important to explore and map out the clinical variables associated with the two conditions, to “understand who has a type 2 MI and who has cardiac injury. And believe it or not, it’s actually harder than it sounds to sort that out.”

“Practically speaking, the differentiation between these events is clinical,” Dr. Sandoval agreed. “There’s not always perfect agreement on what we’re calling what.”

Consequently, the universal definitions might categorize some events in ways that seem inconsistent from a management perspective. For example, they make a sharp distinction between coronary atherothrombotic and coronary nonatherothrombotic MI etiologies. Some clinicians would group MI caused by coronary spasm, coronary embolism, or spontaneous coronary artery dissection along with MI from coronary plaque rupture and thrombosis. But, Dr. Sandoval said, “even though these are coronary issues, they would fall into the type 2 bin.”

Also, about half of cases identified as type 2 MI are caused by tachyarrhythmias, which can elevate troponin and cause ECG changes and possibly symptoms resembling angina, Dr. Newby observed. “But that is completely different from other types of myocardial infarction, which are much more serious.”

So, “it’s a real mess of a diagnosis – acute myocardial injury, type 2 and type 1 MI – and it can be quite difficult to disentangle,” he said. “I think that the definition certainly has let us down.”

The diversity of type 2 MI clinical settings might also be a challenge. Myocardial injury according to cTn, with or without ischemia, occurs widely during critical illnesses and acute conditions, including respiratory distress, sepsis, internal bleeding, stroke, and pulmonary embolism.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, much was made of elevated troponin levels and myocarditis as an apparently frequent complication among hospitalized patients. “I raised my hand and said, we’ve been seeing abnormal troponins in people with influenza for 20 years,” Dr. Januzzi said. “Critical illness, infection, toxicity from drugs, from chemotherapy, from alcohol – there are all sorts of potential triggers of myocardial injury.”
 

Troponin ‘overdependence’

With many clinical settings in common and the presence or absence of myocardial ischemia to primarily distinguish them, type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury both can be mistaken for the other. That can send management decisions in inappropriate directions.

A 2019 study looked at 633 cases that had been coded as type 2 MI at a major center and readjudicated them according to the fourth universal definition. Only 57% met all the type 2 criteria, 42% were reclassified as nonischemic myocardial injury, and a few were determined to have unstable angina.

“There’s overdependence on the easiest tool in the universal definition,” said Dr. Januzzi, a coauthor on that study. “Frequently people get seduced by the rise in a troponin value and immediately call it a myocardial infarction, lacking the other components of the universal definition that require evidence for coronary ischemia. That happens every day, where someone with an abnormal troponin is incorrectly branded as having an MI.”

It may not help that the current ICD-10-CM system features a diagnostic code for type 2 MI but not for myocardial injury.

“Instead, the new ICD-10-CM coding includes a proxy called ‘non-MI troponin elevation due to an underlying cause,’ ” wrote Kristian Thygesen, MD, DSc, and Allan S. Jaffe, MD, in a recent editorial. They caution against “using this code for myocardial injury because it is not specific for an elevated cTn value and could represent any abnormal laboratory measurements.” The code could be “misleading,” thereby worsening the potential for miscoding and “misattribution of MI diagnoses.”

That potential suggests there could be a growing population of patients who have been told they had an MI, which then becomes part of their medical record, when, actually, they experienced nonischemic myocardial injury.

“Having seen this occur,” Dr. Januzzi explained, “it affects people emotionally to think they’ve had an MI. Precision in diagnosis is important, which is why the universal definition is so valuable. If people would adhere to it more assiduously, we could reduce the frequency of people getting a misdiagnosis of MI when in fact they had injury.”

Still, he added, “if someone has an illness severe enough to cause myocardial injury, they’re at risk for a bad outcome regardless of whether they did or didn’t have an MI.”
 

The uncertain role of angiography

Angiography isn’t ordered nearly as often for patients ultimately diagnosed with type 2 MI or myocardial injury as for those with type 1 MI. Type 2 MI can hit some patients who have remained symptom free despite possibly unrecognized obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) when myocardial demand is pushed past supply by a critical illness, tachyarrhythmia, or other acute conditions.

In such cases, “it’s reasonable to hypothesize that revascularization, something that really is not done in the vast majority of patients with type 2 MI, might actually be of benefit,” Dr. Januzzi said.

Whether these patients should routinely have angiography remains an open question. Without intervention, any newly identified obstructive CAD would continue to lurk in the background as a potential threat.

In efforts to differentiate type 2 MI from nonischemic injury, it can be “incredibly hard to know whether or not there’s actual ischemia in the mix. And that’s the only thing that defines the difference before taking an angiogram,” Derek P. Chew, MBBS, MPH, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia, said in an interview.

Dr. Chew is principal investigator for the ongoing ACT-2 trial that is enrolling hospitalized, hemodynamically stable patients with cTn elevations but no suspicion of type 1 MI and “an unequivocal acute intercurrent diagnosis.” Qualifying diagnoses are prespecified on a list that includes sepsis, pneumonia, septicemia, a systemic inflammatory response, anemia, atrial tachycardia, acute kidney injury, and recent noncardiac surgery.

The patients are randomly assigned to a strategy of routine, usually invasive coronary angiography with discretionary revascularization, or to conservative care with noninvasive functional testing as appropriate. The sicker the patient, the greater the competing risk from other conditions and the less revascularization is likely to improve outcomes, Dr. Chew observed. Importantly, therefore, outcomes in the trial will be stratified by patient risk from comorbidities, measured with baseline GRACE and APACHE III scores.

Dr. Chew said the study aims to determine whether routine angiography is of benefit in patients at some identifiable level of risk, if not the whole range. One possible result, he said, is that there could be a risk-profile “sweet spot” associated with better outcomes in those assigned to angiography.

Enrollment in the trial started about 3 years ago, but “the process has been slow,” he said, because many potentially referring clinicians have a “bias on one side or another,” with about half of them preferring the angiography approach and the other half conservative management.
 

The unsettled role of drug therapy

With their often-complicated clinical profile, patients with type 2 MI or nonischemic myocardial injury tend to be medically undertreated, yet there is observational evidence they can benefit from familiar drug therapies.

In the previously noted cohort study of 3,800 younger patients with one of the three forms of myocardial injury, less than half of patients with type 2 MI received any form of CAD secondary prevention therapy at discharge, the researchers, with first author Avinainder Singh, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn, wrote.

The finding, consistent with Dr. Newby’s study from 2018, suggests that “categorizing the type of MI in young subjects might inform long-term cardiovascular prognosis,” and “emphasizes the need to identify and implement secondary prevention strategies to mitigate the high rate of cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 MI,” they concluded.

Further, outcomes varied with the number of discharge CV meds in an older cohort of patients with myocardial injury. Those with type 2 MI or acute or chronic nonischemic myocardial injury were far less likely than patients with type 1 MI to be prescribed guideline-based drugs. Survival was greater for those on two or three classes of CV medications, compared with one or none, in patients with acute or chronic nonischemic injury.

The investigators urged that patients with nonischemic myocardial injury or type 2 MI “be treated with cardiovascular medication to a larger degree than what is done today.”

When there is documented CAD in patients with type 2 MI, “it would be reasonable to suggest that preventative secondary prevention approaches, such as such lipid-reduction therapy or aspirin, would be beneficial,” Dr. Sandoval said. “But the reality is, there are no randomized trials, there are no prospective studies. ACT-2 is one of the few and early studies that’s really trying to address this.”

“The great majority of these people are not going to the cath lab, but when they do, there seems to be a signal of potential benefit,” Dr. Januzzi said. “For someone with a type 2 MI, it’s quite possible revascularization might help. Then more long-term treatment with medications that are proven in randomized trials to reduce risk would be a very plausible intervention.”

“We’ve actually proposed a number of potential therapeutic interventions to explore, both in people with type 2 MI and in people with injury without MI,” he said. “They might include sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. They might include antithrombotic therapy or more aggressive lipid lowering, possibly for the pleiotropic effects rather than the effects on atherosclerosis.”

Any such therapies that prove successful in well-designed trials could well earn both type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury, neglected as disorders in their own right, the kind of respect in clinical care pathways that they likely deserve.

Dr. Newby has disclosed receiving consulting fees or honoraria from Eli Lilly, Roche, Toshiba, Jansen, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, CellProthera, and Oncoarendi; and conducting research or receiving grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Inositec. Sandoval reports serving on an advisory board and as a speaker for Abbott Diagnostics and on an advisory board for Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi has disclosed receiving grant support from Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, and Innolife; consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Janssen, Novartis, Quidel, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on endpoint committees or data safety monitoring boards for trials supported by Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, CVRx, Janssen, MyoKardia, and Takeda. Dr. Chew has reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca and Edwards Life Sciences. ACT-2 is sponsored by the National Medical and Health Research Council of Australia.

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

Finerenone, an investigational agent from a new drug class, just scored a second pivotal trial win after showing significant benefit for slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes in the FIDELIO-DKD pivotal trial with more than 5,700 patients.

Top-line results from FIGARO-DKD showed significant benefit for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease endpoints in a placebo-controlled trial with about 7,400 patients with type 2 diabetes, reported Bayer, the company developing finerenone in statement released on May 10, 2021.

Based on the FIDELIO-DKD results, finerenone is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for marketing approval as a treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. FIDELIO-DKD, in addition to the primary endpoint that focused on slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, had a secondary endpoint that assessed the combined incidence on treatment of cardiovascular death, or nonfatal episodes of stroke, MI, or hospitalization for heart failure. Results from the study published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that finerenone was safe and effective for both endpoints.

In the current study, FIGARO-DKD, run at more than 1,000 sites in 47 countries, these endpoints flipped. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, and the secondary outcome was prevention of DKD progression.

Other than stating the results significantly fulfilled FIGARO-DKD’s primary endpoint of reducing the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease endpoints, the release gave no further outcome details. The release noted that the enrolled patient cohort in FIGARO-DKD included more patients with earlier-stage chronic kidney disease, compared with FIDELIO-DKD.

Finerenone is a first-in-class investigational nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). As an MRA it shares certain activities with the steroidal MRAs spironolactone and eplerenone. But the absence of a steroidal structure means that finerenone does not cause steroidal adverse effects such as gynecomastia. Results in FIDELIO-DKD showed that finerenone caused more hyperkalemia than placebo, but the level of hyperkalemia that it causes relative to spironolactone or eplerenone remains uncertain.

[email protected]

Finerenone, an investigational agent from a new drug class, just scored a second pivotal trial win after showing significant benefit for slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes in the FIDELIO-DKD pivotal trial with more than 5,700 patients.

Top-line results from FIGARO-DKD showed significant benefit for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease endpoints in a placebo-controlled trial with about 7,400 patients with type 2 diabetes, reported Bayer, the company developing finerenone in statement released on May 10, 2021.

Based on the FIDELIO-DKD results, finerenone is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for marketing approval as a treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. FIDELIO-DKD, in addition to the primary endpoint that focused on slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, had a secondary endpoint that assessed the combined incidence on treatment of cardiovascular death, or nonfatal episodes of stroke, MI, or hospitalization for heart failure. Results from the study published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that finerenone was safe and effective for both endpoints.

In the current study, FIGARO-DKD, run at more than 1,000 sites in 47 countries, these endpoints flipped. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, and the secondary outcome was prevention of DKD progression.

Other than stating the results significantly fulfilled FIGARO-DKD’s primary endpoint of reducing the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease endpoints, the release gave no further outcome details. The release noted that the enrolled patient cohort in FIGARO-DKD included more patients with earlier-stage chronic kidney disease, compared with FIDELIO-DKD.

Finerenone is a first-in-class investigational nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). As an MRA it shares certain activities with the steroidal MRAs spironolactone and eplerenone. But the absence of a steroidal structure means that finerenone does not cause steroidal adverse effects such as gynecomastia. Results in FIDELIO-DKD showed that finerenone caused more hyperkalemia than placebo, but the level of hyperkalemia that it causes relative to spironolactone or eplerenone remains uncertain.

[email protected]

Finerenone, an investigational agent from a new drug class, just scored a second pivotal trial win after showing significant benefit for slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes in the FIDELIO-DKD pivotal trial with more than 5,700 patients.

Top-line results from FIGARO-DKD showed significant benefit for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease endpoints in a placebo-controlled trial with about 7,400 patients with type 2 diabetes, reported Bayer, the company developing finerenone in statement released on May 10, 2021.

Based on the FIDELIO-DKD results, finerenone is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for marketing approval as a treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. FIDELIO-DKD, in addition to the primary endpoint that focused on slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, had a secondary endpoint that assessed the combined incidence on treatment of cardiovascular death, or nonfatal episodes of stroke, MI, or hospitalization for heart failure. Results from the study published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that finerenone was safe and effective for both endpoints.

In the current study, FIGARO-DKD, run at more than 1,000 sites in 47 countries, these endpoints flipped. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, and the secondary outcome was prevention of DKD progression.

Other than stating the results significantly fulfilled FIGARO-DKD’s primary endpoint of reducing the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease endpoints, the release gave no further outcome details. The release noted that the enrolled patient cohort in FIGARO-DKD included more patients with earlier-stage chronic kidney disease, compared with FIDELIO-DKD.

Finerenone is a first-in-class investigational nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). As an MRA it shares certain activities with the steroidal MRAs spironolactone and eplerenone. But the absence of a steroidal structure means that finerenone does not cause steroidal adverse effects such as gynecomastia. Results in FIDELIO-DKD showed that finerenone caused more hyperkalemia than placebo, but the level of hyperkalemia that it causes relative to spironolactone or eplerenone remains uncertain.

[email protected]

Scientists have proposed a simple new definition for “metabolically healthy obesity” to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) death and total mortality.

The team – led by Anika Zembic, MPH, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany – performed an assessment of anthropometric and metabolic risk factors as well as mortality data from two cohorts that “yielded a simple definition to categorize participants with obesity as metabolically healthy or unhealthy.”

They defined “metabolically healthy” as systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and no use of blood pressure-lowering medication; waist-to-hip ratio <0.95 (in women) and <1.03 (in men); and no prevalent type 2 diabetes.

Based on this new definition, 42% of participants in the third U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-III) and 19% of participants in the UK Biobank study had metabolically healthy obesity and did not have an increased risk for CVD mortality and total mortality compared with individuals with metabolically healthy normal weight.  

“People with a phenotype defined as metabolically unhealthy using this definition had significantly higher hazard ratios for [CVD] mortality and total mortality irrespective of body mass index category, and people with phenotypes defined as having metabolically healthy obesity displayed no increased risk,” the researchers noted in their article, published May 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our new definition may be important not only to stratify risk of mortality in people with obesity, but also in people with overweight and normal weight,” they concluded.
 

Thirty different definitions of ‘metabolically healthy obesity’

“To date, there is no universally accepted standard for defining [metabolically healthy obesity] and more than 30 different definitions have been used to operationalize the phenotypes in studies,” which may explain the “continued unresolved debate” about outcomes in patients with metabolically unhealthy obesity, Ayana K. April-Sanders, PhD, and Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote in an accompanying commentary.

The current study, they noted, suggests that waist-to-hip ratio is a better measure of central adiposity than waist circumference, and that the effect of dyslipidemia on CVD mortality may be weaker among individuals with obesity.

However, the findings may not be generalizable to other CVD outcomes, they cautioned.

And importantly, some individuals with metabolically healthy obesity will likely transition to unhealthy obesity over time due to weight gain, aging, and lack of physical activity.

Therefore, “the present study provides a prototype of how that definition can be derived, but more rigorous tests and evidence using similar techniques are needed, particularly in prospective studies,” according to Dr. April-Sanders and Dr. Rodriguez.

They call for more research to establish a standardized definition of metabolically healthy obesity and then, using that definition, to determine the prevalence of healthy and unhealthy obesity and identify factors that preserve healthy obesity. 
 

Definition developed from NHANES cohort, validated in UK biobank

Ms. Zembic and colleagues explained that previous definitions for metabolically healthy obesity were mainly based on the absence of either metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance, but some individuals with obesity but without metabolic disease still have increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

To develop a more precise definition of metabolically healthy obesity, the researchers analyzed data from 12,341 individuals in the United States who participated in NHANES-III, conducted between 1988 and 1994. The individuals were a mean age of 42 and 51% were women, and they were followed for an average of 14.5 years.  

The researchers validated this definition using data from 374,079 individuals in the population-based UK Biobank cohort who were assessed in 2006 to 2010. Those individuals were a mean age of 56 and 55% were women, and they were followed for a mean of 7.8 years.

The combination of systolic blood pressure and waist-to-hip ratio had the strongest association with CVD mortality and total mortality, and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes was also associated with greater risk.

Regardless of BMI, all groups of metabolically unhealthy individuals had increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

The study and some of the researchers were supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.  

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

Scientists have proposed a simple new definition for “metabolically healthy obesity” to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) death and total mortality.

The team – led by Anika Zembic, MPH, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany – performed an assessment of anthropometric and metabolic risk factors as well as mortality data from two cohorts that “yielded a simple definition to categorize participants with obesity as metabolically healthy or unhealthy.”

They defined “metabolically healthy” as systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and no use of blood pressure-lowering medication; waist-to-hip ratio <0.95 (in women) and <1.03 (in men); and no prevalent type 2 diabetes.

Based on this new definition, 42% of participants in the third U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-III) and 19% of participants in the UK Biobank study had metabolically healthy obesity and did not have an increased risk for CVD mortality and total mortality compared with individuals with metabolically healthy normal weight.  

“People with a phenotype defined as metabolically unhealthy using this definition had significantly higher hazard ratios for [CVD] mortality and total mortality irrespective of body mass index category, and people with phenotypes defined as having metabolically healthy obesity displayed no increased risk,” the researchers noted in their article, published May 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our new definition may be important not only to stratify risk of mortality in people with obesity, but also in people with overweight and normal weight,” they concluded.
 

Thirty different definitions of ‘metabolically healthy obesity’

“To date, there is no universally accepted standard for defining [metabolically healthy obesity] and more than 30 different definitions have been used to operationalize the phenotypes in studies,” which may explain the “continued unresolved debate” about outcomes in patients with metabolically unhealthy obesity, Ayana K. April-Sanders, PhD, and Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote in an accompanying commentary.

The current study, they noted, suggests that waist-to-hip ratio is a better measure of central adiposity than waist circumference, and that the effect of dyslipidemia on CVD mortality may be weaker among individuals with obesity.

However, the findings may not be generalizable to other CVD outcomes, they cautioned.

And importantly, some individuals with metabolically healthy obesity will likely transition to unhealthy obesity over time due to weight gain, aging, and lack of physical activity.

Therefore, “the present study provides a prototype of how that definition can be derived, but more rigorous tests and evidence using similar techniques are needed, particularly in prospective studies,” according to Dr. April-Sanders and Dr. Rodriguez.

They call for more research to establish a standardized definition of metabolically healthy obesity and then, using that definition, to determine the prevalence of healthy and unhealthy obesity and identify factors that preserve healthy obesity. 
 

Definition developed from NHANES cohort, validated in UK biobank

Ms. Zembic and colleagues explained that previous definitions for metabolically healthy obesity were mainly based on the absence of either metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance, but some individuals with obesity but without metabolic disease still have increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

To develop a more precise definition of metabolically healthy obesity, the researchers analyzed data from 12,341 individuals in the United States who participated in NHANES-III, conducted between 1988 and 1994. The individuals were a mean age of 42 and 51% were women, and they were followed for an average of 14.5 years.  

The researchers validated this definition using data from 374,079 individuals in the population-based UK Biobank cohort who were assessed in 2006 to 2010. Those individuals were a mean age of 56 and 55% were women, and they were followed for a mean of 7.8 years.

The combination of systolic blood pressure and waist-to-hip ratio had the strongest association with CVD mortality and total mortality, and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes was also associated with greater risk.

Regardless of BMI, all groups of metabolically unhealthy individuals had increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

The study and some of the researchers were supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.  

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

Scientists have proposed a simple new definition for “metabolically healthy obesity” to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) death and total mortality.

The team – led by Anika Zembic, MPH, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany – performed an assessment of anthropometric and metabolic risk factors as well as mortality data from two cohorts that “yielded a simple definition to categorize participants with obesity as metabolically healthy or unhealthy.”

They defined “metabolically healthy” as systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and no use of blood pressure-lowering medication; waist-to-hip ratio <0.95 (in women) and <1.03 (in men); and no prevalent type 2 diabetes.

Based on this new definition, 42% of participants in the third U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-III) and 19% of participants in the UK Biobank study had metabolically healthy obesity and did not have an increased risk for CVD mortality and total mortality compared with individuals with metabolically healthy normal weight.  

“People with a phenotype defined as metabolically unhealthy using this definition had significantly higher hazard ratios for [CVD] mortality and total mortality irrespective of body mass index category, and people with phenotypes defined as having metabolically healthy obesity displayed no increased risk,” the researchers noted in their article, published May 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our new definition may be important not only to stratify risk of mortality in people with obesity, but also in people with overweight and normal weight,” they concluded.
 

Thirty different definitions of ‘metabolically healthy obesity’

“To date, there is no universally accepted standard for defining [metabolically healthy obesity] and more than 30 different definitions have been used to operationalize the phenotypes in studies,” which may explain the “continued unresolved debate” about outcomes in patients with metabolically unhealthy obesity, Ayana K. April-Sanders, PhD, and Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote in an accompanying commentary.

The current study, they noted, suggests that waist-to-hip ratio is a better measure of central adiposity than waist circumference, and that the effect of dyslipidemia on CVD mortality may be weaker among individuals with obesity.

However, the findings may not be generalizable to other CVD outcomes, they cautioned.

And importantly, some individuals with metabolically healthy obesity will likely transition to unhealthy obesity over time due to weight gain, aging, and lack of physical activity.

Therefore, “the present study provides a prototype of how that definition can be derived, but more rigorous tests and evidence using similar techniques are needed, particularly in prospective studies,” according to Dr. April-Sanders and Dr. Rodriguez.

They call for more research to establish a standardized definition of metabolically healthy obesity and then, using that definition, to determine the prevalence of healthy and unhealthy obesity and identify factors that preserve healthy obesity. 
 

Definition developed from NHANES cohort, validated in UK biobank

Ms. Zembic and colleagues explained that previous definitions for metabolically healthy obesity were mainly based on the absence of either metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance, but some individuals with obesity but without metabolic disease still have increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

To develop a more precise definition of metabolically healthy obesity, the researchers analyzed data from 12,341 individuals in the United States who participated in NHANES-III, conducted between 1988 and 1994. The individuals were a mean age of 42 and 51% were women, and they were followed for an average of 14.5 years.  

The researchers validated this definition using data from 374,079 individuals in the population-based UK Biobank cohort who were assessed in 2006 to 2010. Those individuals were a mean age of 56 and 55% were women, and they were followed for a mean of 7.8 years.

The combination of systolic blood pressure and waist-to-hip ratio had the strongest association with CVD mortality and total mortality, and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes was also associated with greater risk.

Regardless of BMI, all groups of metabolically unhealthy individuals had increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

The study and some of the researchers were supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.  

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