Cardiology

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

While cardiovascular mortality rates have declined, heart disease continues to be the leading cause of death in the US, and the number of people with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is rising.¹ CVD is more prevalent among military veterans than it is among nonveterans aged ≥ 25 years, and veteran status is associated with higher risk of incident heart disease after controlling for socioeconomic status, other medical diseases, depression, and lifestyle.^2-4 Combat exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and Purple Heart commendation are associated with higher rates of CVD, including adverse cardiovascular events.^5-7 Many patients seeking care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), including those who undergo cardiac catheterization, meet the criteria for multimorbidity (defined as having ≥ 2 chronic diseases⁸), which is common among veterans.^9,10 Multimorbidity presents a challenge for lifestyle intervention, as different diets may be prescribed to treat different conditions, such as Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, and low-glycemic diet for diabetes mellitus (DM). Veterans with CVD are often clinically complex and may require more multifaceted secondary prevention programs.

During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, effective secondary prevention intervention is needed more than ever. Older age, CVD, and common comorbidities, including hypertension, DM, and obesity, place patients at the highest risk for severe COVID-19 infection.¹¹ COVID-19 social distancing encourages vulnerable populations to stay home, which can make engaging in any levels of physical activity more challenging. The International Food Council found that 85% of adults have made a change to their food consumption pattern, including eating more, during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹² Thus, secondary CVD prevention programs for veterans need to provide treatment that addresses these specific challenges and can be delivered via telehealth for continuity of care after disruption of traditional services.

Nutrition may be the most powerful Ornish ICR component. The initial RCT conducted by Ornish and colleagues included only stress management training and a whole-food, plant-based (WFPB) diet, including grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds. The trial found 91% of participants experienced reduced angina after only 24 days.¹⁵ The only single-component intervention study resulting in partial reversal of atherosclerosis was a WFPB diet-only study, which documented regression of atherosclerotic plaques after 5 years, using coronary angiography in 73% of participants, with arrested progression in the other 27%.²² Participants reported no cardiovascular AEs after 12 years.²³ Furthermore, a number of other recent studies have demonstrated the benefits of WFPB diet-only interventions for type 2 DM (T2DM), hypertension, and obesity.^24-27 The Heart Disease Reversal Program (HDRP) was developed to create an interdisciplinary lifestyle intervention that emphasized nutrition for a broad population of veterans with atherosclerotic CVD, of varying levels of functional ability, to promote comprehensive CVD risk reduction and bring heart disease reversal intervention into routine clinical practice.

Program Description 

The Mental Health, Cardiology, and Nutrition and Food services all approved the launch of HDRP. We contacted veterans by mail, and 11% expressed interest (Figure). Among patients who received the initial mailed letter (prior to our accepting staff referrals), only 5% of patients who enrolled in HDRP reported previously being told about or prescribed a WFPB diet by any health care provider (HCP). Currently, patients are primarily referred to HDRP by Cardiology, Primary Care, and Mental Health services.

Design

HDRP is an adaptation of interdisciplinary lifestyle interventions that have resulted in regression of atherosclerotic blockages confirmed with invasive coronary angiography.^15-17,22,28 HDRP currently is offered in a Behavioral Medicine Clinic at the Sacramento US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (VAMC) in California. Program staff include a clinical health psychologist who organizes, coordinates, and act as the lead facilitator of the program; registered dietitians; clinical pharmacists; and a consulting physician. Patients engage in the 4-month core HDRP program in small cohorts (ie, 6-10 patients), and spouses/partners are highly encouraged to attend all sessions.

Components

Telephone screening. Patients are screened for the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1). Patients engaging in a traditional CR program are included in the screening. Patients are informed that the program consists of lifestyle intervention, including emphasis on following a WFPB diet.

A psychologist delivers the physical activity component. Patients are encouraged to meet the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology recommendations for aerobic exercise (at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week) through a walking program.³⁵ Patients with medical contraindications (eg, severe pain, mobility restrictions) are encouraged to follow the exercise/activity recommendations they had been given by their primary care provider (PCP), physical therapist, or other HCP.

A psychologist provides evidence-based cognitive behavioral stress management (CBSM) training, adapted from models developed for patients with stable ischemic heart disease, HIV/AIDS, and cancer.^36-38 CBSM is a psychotherapy grounded in stress/coping theory and cognitive behavioral theory of psychopathology that integrates cognitive restructuring, coping skills training, communication/assertiveness training, anger management, and mindfulness/acceptance-based approaches. Additional emphasis is placed on assisting patients’ adjustment to the lifestyle challenges for following a plant-based diet, dealing with food cravings and emotional eating, and connecting lifestyle change to patients’ deepest values and goals.

A clinical pharmacist conducts a medication reconciliation for each patient at baseline. The pharmacist consults with each patient’s PCP, cardiologist, and HDRP consulting physician, as needed, to ensure safe adjustments to medications. Pharmacists also provide education on medications at group sessions.

After completion of the 12-week core program, graduates are encouraged to attend the monthly graduates’ group indefinitely, and as often as they desire to promote maintenance of the disease reversal lifestyle. Patients are encouraged to complete our recommended fasting laboratory work every 3 to 6 months to facilitate maintenance of treatment gains.

Program Evaluation

Patients frequently reported that the group format was vital to their success. Patients requested a cooking class, yet we lacked a full teaching kitchen. Integrating plant-based meal samples at every session and cooking videos helped. Patients reported that 100% adherence to the WFPB diet led to significant changes in their food preferences, including a loss of interest in meat.³⁹ Patients encouraged us to keep the “disease reversal” language and focus. One veteran stated: “Disease reversal, that is the reason I called you when I got your letter.” Showing before and after images of coronary angiograms and cardiac positron emission tomography scans depicting regression of atherosclerotic plaque and restored myocardial perfusion were described as highly motivating and generated willingness to commit to a more aggressive lifestyle change.³¹

Patients routinely stated that they lacked understanding of their laboratory test results, which HDRP remedied. Some patients reported their adult children followed a plant-based diet, and our program resulted in a new commonality and source of bonding that was highly valued. Some patients reported that HDRP was helpful for controlling their COVID-19 anxiety and feeling in control of their health. Satisfaction surveys were completed by participants at the end of the core program, which demonstrated very high satisfaction with and acceptability of HDRP (Table 3).

COVID-19 Response

Face-to-face group appointments were converted to videoconferencing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While HDRP always promoted the use of technology and mHealth tools, the pandemic led us to develop novel technology-based interventions.⁴⁰ One cohort transitioned from in-person to videoconferencing sessions, and 2 cohorts recently started this format and are ongoing. We have successfully used videoconferencing with Cisco Webex, the VA-approved backup platform, as we encountered technical barriers when using VA Video Connect. Program materials were shared electronically, and participants sent blood pressure/sugar logs by secure messaging. Guidance for online grocery shopping with home delivery was provided, and research on the benefits of the HDRP lifestyle on immune function was incorporated.

The stress management component incorporated coping with COVID-19, including normalizing common emotional difficulties with sheltering-in-place and quarantine, acknowledging and processing fear and anxiety related to being at very high risk for severe COVID-19. We presented heart disease reversal as an urgent and feasible goal during the pandemic both reducing risk of premature death and major adverse cardiovascular events in the long-term and also reducing personal risk of severe COVID complications. The new VA COVID Coach app was also presented as a resource. Reputable sources of COVID-19 and public health information were shared. Walking continued to be the primary recommended form of exercise, while indoor home exercise options were promoted during the periods of very poor air quality due to the widespread California fires and smoke.

Considering the research suggesting benefits of our intervention for treating T2DM,promoting sustained weight loss, and promoting comprehensive cardiometabolic risk reduction, we have begun accepting referrals for patients with any type of atherosclerotic CVD (eg, peripheral artery disease, carotid artery disease), patients with T2DM (without CVD), and patients with only a history of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack.^24-27 Vascular surgery has become a new referral source, primarily for patients with peripheral and carotid artery diseases. Finally, we are leveraging videoconferencing and accepting referrals across the VA Northern California Health Care System (VANCHCS)catchment (from the California-Oregon state border to the San Francisco Bay Area). This also helps address a long-standing problem with reaching the many rural veterans who live far from a VA clinic. We successfully implemented a consult/referral process within the EHR that is available to providers across VANCHCS.

Discussion

The efficacy and effectiveness of reversal programs are well established in intensive programs (eg, ICR), yet such programs have yet to be streamlined and disseminated broadly into routine clinical care. HDRP has endeavored to address this by emphasizing nutrition relative to other program components. We have learned that the words “disease reversal” are very often the reason patients initially reach out or accept referral to our program.

Consistent with past research on plant-based nutrition interventions, the group format was indispensable.⁴¹ Individual sessions with a clinical health psychologist enabled tailored feedback and education on how behavior changes could impact laboratory results and how certain psychosocial factors could support success. Participants reported that seeing significantly favorable laboratory results was highly motivating and confirmed the power of their lifestyle changes. Furthermore, a psychosocial health assessment with individual sessions promoted a tailored treatment plan with targeted clinical interventions, such as behavioral health education, motivational interviewing, and advanced methods, including cognitive behavioral therapy and techniques drawn from dialectical behavior therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy.

Veterans with multimorbidity face the difficult task of learning and maintaining a complex disease self-management program and implementing a lifestyle approach that is feasible, effective, promotes weight loss, and treats multiple conditions. HDRP is a model approach for this population, as demonstrated by a recent case report of a 65-year-old male veteran with atherosclerotic CVD, T2DM, hypertension, and myasthenia gravis who had 2 heart attacks within 2 months.⁴² His neurologic disease precluded significant physical activity. Although he achieved some initial weight loss through lifestyle changes, he continued to have daily angina despite optimal and aggressive cardiology management. After enrolling in HDRP and adopting the WFPB diet, the patient reported almost complete resolution of angina within 1 month, similar to that found in other studies.¹⁵

The literature suggests that concern over the acceptability of plant-based diets and patients’ ability to adhere to them long-term may be misplaced. A review paper on dietary interventions lasting > 1 year found that 51 to 61% of vegetarian and vegan study participants had maintained dietary adherence, while 20 to 55% of omnivorous diet intervention participants adhered to their study diets.⁴³ Remarkably, there were no statistically significant differences in the acceptability of the vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous diets in the studies reviewed.⁴³ Recent dietary research also suggests that providing patients with higher goals (eg, adopting a vegan diet instead of only moderate dietary changes) results in greater weight loss and maintenance.²⁶ HDRP provides training on consumption of whole plant foods, which may offer patients a unique advantage for maximizing results and higher adherence over time.

Limitations

Hands-on cooking instruction was not provided at our VAMC. The total time of the intervention was significantly less in HDRP (25 hours) than it was for the Ornish ICR program (72 hours), which may hinder long-term adherence. Without an exercise facility, we were not able to provide more detailed exercise instruction and supervised exercise.

Program Improvements Planned

There are a number of improvements that are planned for HDRP. First, the program anticipates requesting medical clearance at the telephone screening stage for self-referred patients. Second, HDRP will provide regular presentations on the program to VAMC clinics and community-based outpatient clinics, including reminders about inclusion/exclusion criteria and the referral process, and to solicit feedback on processes. Third, we hope to routinely provide education and address common questions and concerns of HCPs, including expected results. Fourth, we would like to lengthen the patient commitment to HDRP (eg, 1- to 2-year commitment to the graduate group), consistent with other HDRPs.²⁸ Fifth, we hope to further integrate technology-based components to promote behavior change/maintenance, such as automated text messaging.

Conclusions

Although our patient population was self-selected for participation, early program evaluation demonstrates high acceptability. Very few patients had ever been told about a heart disease reversing lifestyle, and we found direct-to-patient clinical outreach an effective method for launching a disease reversal program (optimally timed with HCP presentations). Furthermore, the program is adaptable to current restrictions on in-person appointments due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and much more convenient for rural veterans who live far from any VA clinic. Being able to offer sustainable health care for individuals during unexpected public health crises is critically important. Additionally, treating veterans who are most vulnerable to pandemic illness due to existing medical conditions, such as CVD, should be a high priority. Last, HDRP also may represent a novel integrated treatment for COVID-19 anxiety and secondary CVD prevention, as lifestyle habits are optimized to improve chronic diseases that elevate risk for severe COVID-19 infection and mortality, as well as including coping strategies consistent with evidence-based psychotherapies for anxiety disorders.⁴⁴

We believe that beyond the clinical benefits to patients, there is significant value and benefit added to the health care system by offering an intervention within the “disease reversal” paradigm. Efforts of the health care team to reverse a disease can be considered the highest aim of medicine and health care.⁴⁵

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. We give special thanks to David M. Gellerman, MD, PhD, and David W. Schafer, PsyD, for providing Mental Health Service support for initiating the Heart Disease Reversal Program, and to Joseph Giorgio, PsyD (Program Manager, Integrated Care Program) for sustaining it. We thank Amogh Bhat, MD, Chief of Cardiology, for his continued support and partnership with the Cardiology Department. We express thanks to Stephanie Mohney, RDN (Chief, Nutrition and Food Service), Amy Klotz, RDN (Supervisory Dietician), Sian M. Carr-Lopez, PharmD (Associate Chief of Pharmacy, Primary Care), and Michelle Rand, PharmD, CACP (Anticoagulation Clinical Pharmacist-Supervisor) for their staff support of this interdisciplinary program. We thank the patients and their families for their participation in the program and commitment to the lifestyle changes. We also thank the following individuals for their contributions to this program: Lisa Wagaman, RDN, Karen Soong, PharmD, Sara S. Ali, PharmD, Suzan Hua, PharmD, and Stephen Cooperman.

While cardiovascular mortality rates have declined, heart disease continues to be the leading cause of death in the US, and the number of people with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is rising.¹ CVD is more prevalent among military veterans than it is among nonveterans aged ≥ 25 years, and veteran status is associated with higher risk of incident heart disease after controlling for socioeconomic status, other medical diseases, depression, and lifestyle.^2-4 Combat exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and Purple Heart commendation are associated with higher rates of CVD, including adverse cardiovascular events.^5-7 Many patients seeking care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), including those who undergo cardiac catheterization, meet the criteria for multimorbidity (defined as having ≥ 2 chronic diseases⁸), which is common among veterans.^9,10 Multimorbidity presents a challenge for lifestyle intervention, as different diets may be prescribed to treat different conditions, such as Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, and low-glycemic diet for diabetes mellitus (DM). Veterans with CVD are often clinically complex and may require more multifaceted secondary prevention programs.

During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, effective secondary prevention intervention is needed more than ever. Older age, CVD, and common comorbidities, including hypertension, DM, and obesity, place patients at the highest risk for severe COVID-19 infection.¹¹ COVID-19 social distancing encourages vulnerable populations to stay home, which can make engaging in any levels of physical activity more challenging. The International Food Council found that 85% of adults have made a change to their food consumption pattern, including eating more, during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹² Thus, secondary CVD prevention programs for veterans need to provide treatment that addresses these specific challenges and can be delivered via telehealth for continuity of care after disruption of traditional services.

Nutrition may be the most powerful Ornish ICR component. The initial RCT conducted by Ornish and colleagues included only stress management training and a whole-food, plant-based (WFPB) diet, including grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds. The trial found 91% of participants experienced reduced angina after only 24 days.¹⁵ The only single-component intervention study resulting in partial reversal of atherosclerosis was a WFPB diet-only study, which documented regression of atherosclerotic plaques after 5 years, using coronary angiography in 73% of participants, with arrested progression in the other 27%.²² Participants reported no cardiovascular AEs after 12 years.²³ Furthermore, a number of other recent studies have demonstrated the benefits of WFPB diet-only interventions for type 2 DM (T2DM), hypertension, and obesity.^24-27 The Heart Disease Reversal Program (HDRP) was developed to create an interdisciplinary lifestyle intervention that emphasized nutrition for a broad population of veterans with atherosclerotic CVD, of varying levels of functional ability, to promote comprehensive CVD risk reduction and bring heart disease reversal intervention into routine clinical practice.

Program Description 

The Mental Health, Cardiology, and Nutrition and Food services all approved the launch of HDRP. We contacted veterans by mail, and 11% expressed interest (Figure). Among patients who received the initial mailed letter (prior to our accepting staff referrals), only 5% of patients who enrolled in HDRP reported previously being told about or prescribed a WFPB diet by any health care provider (HCP). Currently, patients are primarily referred to HDRP by Cardiology, Primary Care, and Mental Health services.

Design

HDRP is an adaptation of interdisciplinary lifestyle interventions that have resulted in regression of atherosclerotic blockages confirmed with invasive coronary angiography.^15-17,22,28 HDRP currently is offered in a Behavioral Medicine Clinic at the Sacramento US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (VAMC) in California. Program staff include a clinical health psychologist who organizes, coordinates, and act as the lead facilitator of the program; registered dietitians; clinical pharmacists; and a consulting physician. Patients engage in the 4-month core HDRP program in small cohorts (ie, 6-10 patients), and spouses/partners are highly encouraged to attend all sessions.

Components

Telephone screening. Patients are screened for the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1). Patients engaging in a traditional CR program are included in the screening. Patients are informed that the program consists of lifestyle intervention, including emphasis on following a WFPB diet.

A psychologist delivers the physical activity component. Patients are encouraged to meet the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology recommendations for aerobic exercise (at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week) through a walking program.³⁵ Patients with medical contraindications (eg, severe pain, mobility restrictions) are encouraged to follow the exercise/activity recommendations they had been given by their primary care provider (PCP), physical therapist, or other HCP.

A psychologist provides evidence-based cognitive behavioral stress management (CBSM) training, adapted from models developed for patients with stable ischemic heart disease, HIV/AIDS, and cancer.^36-38 CBSM is a psychotherapy grounded in stress/coping theory and cognitive behavioral theory of psychopathology that integrates cognitive restructuring, coping skills training, communication/assertiveness training, anger management, and mindfulness/acceptance-based approaches. Additional emphasis is placed on assisting patients’ adjustment to the lifestyle challenges for following a plant-based diet, dealing with food cravings and emotional eating, and connecting lifestyle change to patients’ deepest values and goals.

A clinical pharmacist conducts a medication reconciliation for each patient at baseline. The pharmacist consults with each patient’s PCP, cardiologist, and HDRP consulting physician, as needed, to ensure safe adjustments to medications. Pharmacists also provide education on medications at group sessions.

After completion of the 12-week core program, graduates are encouraged to attend the monthly graduates’ group indefinitely, and as often as they desire to promote maintenance of the disease reversal lifestyle. Patients are encouraged to complete our recommended fasting laboratory work every 3 to 6 months to facilitate maintenance of treatment gains.

Program Evaluation

Patients frequently reported that the group format was vital to their success. Patients requested a cooking class, yet we lacked a full teaching kitchen. Integrating plant-based meal samples at every session and cooking videos helped. Patients reported that 100% adherence to the WFPB diet led to significant changes in their food preferences, including a loss of interest in meat.³⁹ Patients encouraged us to keep the “disease reversal” language and focus. One veteran stated: “Disease reversal, that is the reason I called you when I got your letter.” Showing before and after images of coronary angiograms and cardiac positron emission tomography scans depicting regression of atherosclerotic plaque and restored myocardial perfusion were described as highly motivating and generated willingness to commit to a more aggressive lifestyle change.³¹

Patients routinely stated that they lacked understanding of their laboratory test results, which HDRP remedied. Some patients reported their adult children followed a plant-based diet, and our program resulted in a new commonality and source of bonding that was highly valued. Some patients reported that HDRP was helpful for controlling their COVID-19 anxiety and feeling in control of their health. Satisfaction surveys were completed by participants at the end of the core program, which demonstrated very high satisfaction with and acceptability of HDRP (Table 3).

COVID-19 Response

Face-to-face group appointments were converted to videoconferencing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While HDRP always promoted the use of technology and mHealth tools, the pandemic led us to develop novel technology-based interventions.⁴⁰ One cohort transitioned from in-person to videoconferencing sessions, and 2 cohorts recently started this format and are ongoing. We have successfully used videoconferencing with Cisco Webex, the VA-approved backup platform, as we encountered technical barriers when using VA Video Connect. Program materials were shared electronically, and participants sent blood pressure/sugar logs by secure messaging. Guidance for online grocery shopping with home delivery was provided, and research on the benefits of the HDRP lifestyle on immune function was incorporated.

The stress management component incorporated coping with COVID-19, including normalizing common emotional difficulties with sheltering-in-place and quarantine, acknowledging and processing fear and anxiety related to being at very high risk for severe COVID-19. We presented heart disease reversal as an urgent and feasible goal during the pandemic both reducing risk of premature death and major adverse cardiovascular events in the long-term and also reducing personal risk of severe COVID complications. The new VA COVID Coach app was also presented as a resource. Reputable sources of COVID-19 and public health information were shared. Walking continued to be the primary recommended form of exercise, while indoor home exercise options were promoted during the periods of very poor air quality due to the widespread California fires and smoke.

Considering the research suggesting benefits of our intervention for treating T2DM,promoting sustained weight loss, and promoting comprehensive cardiometabolic risk reduction, we have begun accepting referrals for patients with any type of atherosclerotic CVD (eg, peripheral artery disease, carotid artery disease), patients with T2DM (without CVD), and patients with only a history of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack.^24-27 Vascular surgery has become a new referral source, primarily for patients with peripheral and carotid artery diseases. Finally, we are leveraging videoconferencing and accepting referrals across the VA Northern California Health Care System (VANCHCS)catchment (from the California-Oregon state border to the San Francisco Bay Area). This also helps address a long-standing problem with reaching the many rural veterans who live far from a VA clinic. We successfully implemented a consult/referral process within the EHR that is available to providers across VANCHCS.

Discussion

The efficacy and effectiveness of reversal programs are well established in intensive programs (eg, ICR), yet such programs have yet to be streamlined and disseminated broadly into routine clinical care. HDRP has endeavored to address this by emphasizing nutrition relative to other program components. We have learned that the words “disease reversal” are very often the reason patients initially reach out or accept referral to our program.

Consistent with past research on plant-based nutrition interventions, the group format was indispensable.⁴¹ Individual sessions with a clinical health psychologist enabled tailored feedback and education on how behavior changes could impact laboratory results and how certain psychosocial factors could support success. Participants reported that seeing significantly favorable laboratory results was highly motivating and confirmed the power of their lifestyle changes. Furthermore, a psychosocial health assessment with individual sessions promoted a tailored treatment plan with targeted clinical interventions, such as behavioral health education, motivational interviewing, and advanced methods, including cognitive behavioral therapy and techniques drawn from dialectical behavior therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy.

Veterans with multimorbidity face the difficult task of learning and maintaining a complex disease self-management program and implementing a lifestyle approach that is feasible, effective, promotes weight loss, and treats multiple conditions. HDRP is a model approach for this population, as demonstrated by a recent case report of a 65-year-old male veteran with atherosclerotic CVD, T2DM, hypertension, and myasthenia gravis who had 2 heart attacks within 2 months.⁴² His neurologic disease precluded significant physical activity. Although he achieved some initial weight loss through lifestyle changes, he continued to have daily angina despite optimal and aggressive cardiology management. After enrolling in HDRP and adopting the WFPB diet, the patient reported almost complete resolution of angina within 1 month, similar to that found in other studies.¹⁵

The literature suggests that concern over the acceptability of plant-based diets and patients’ ability to adhere to them long-term may be misplaced. A review paper on dietary interventions lasting > 1 year found that 51 to 61% of vegetarian and vegan study participants had maintained dietary adherence, while 20 to 55% of omnivorous diet intervention participants adhered to their study diets.⁴³ Remarkably, there were no statistically significant differences in the acceptability of the vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous diets in the studies reviewed.⁴³ Recent dietary research also suggests that providing patients with higher goals (eg, adopting a vegan diet instead of only moderate dietary changes) results in greater weight loss and maintenance.²⁶ HDRP provides training on consumption of whole plant foods, which may offer patients a unique advantage for maximizing results and higher adherence over time.

Limitations

Hands-on cooking instruction was not provided at our VAMC. The total time of the intervention was significantly less in HDRP (25 hours) than it was for the Ornish ICR program (72 hours), which may hinder long-term adherence. Without an exercise facility, we were not able to provide more detailed exercise instruction and supervised exercise.

Program Improvements Planned

There are a number of improvements that are planned for HDRP. First, the program anticipates requesting medical clearance at the telephone screening stage for self-referred patients. Second, HDRP will provide regular presentations on the program to VAMC clinics and community-based outpatient clinics, including reminders about inclusion/exclusion criteria and the referral process, and to solicit feedback on processes. Third, we hope to routinely provide education and address common questions and concerns of HCPs, including expected results. Fourth, we would like to lengthen the patient commitment to HDRP (eg, 1- to 2-year commitment to the graduate group), consistent with other HDRPs.²⁸ Fifth, we hope to further integrate technology-based components to promote behavior change/maintenance, such as automated text messaging.

Conclusions

Although our patient population was self-selected for participation, early program evaluation demonstrates high acceptability. Very few patients had ever been told about a heart disease reversing lifestyle, and we found direct-to-patient clinical outreach an effective method for launching a disease reversal program (optimally timed with HCP presentations). Furthermore, the program is adaptable to current restrictions on in-person appointments due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and much more convenient for rural veterans who live far from any VA clinic. Being able to offer sustainable health care for individuals during unexpected public health crises is critically important. Additionally, treating veterans who are most vulnerable to pandemic illness due to existing medical conditions, such as CVD, should be a high priority. Last, HDRP also may represent a novel integrated treatment for COVID-19 anxiety and secondary CVD prevention, as lifestyle habits are optimized to improve chronic diseases that elevate risk for severe COVID-19 infection and mortality, as well as including coping strategies consistent with evidence-based psychotherapies for anxiety disorders.⁴⁴

We believe that beyond the clinical benefits to patients, there is significant value and benefit added to the health care system by offering an intervention within the “disease reversal” paradigm. Efforts of the health care team to reverse a disease can be considered the highest aim of medicine and health care.⁴⁵

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. We give special thanks to David M. Gellerman, MD, PhD, and David W. Schafer, PsyD, for providing Mental Health Service support for initiating the Heart Disease Reversal Program, and to Joseph Giorgio, PsyD (Program Manager, Integrated Care Program) for sustaining it. We thank Amogh Bhat, MD, Chief of Cardiology, for his continued support and partnership with the Cardiology Department. We express thanks to Stephanie Mohney, RDN (Chief, Nutrition and Food Service), Amy Klotz, RDN (Supervisory Dietician), Sian M. Carr-Lopez, PharmD (Associate Chief of Pharmacy, Primary Care), and Michelle Rand, PharmD, CACP (Anticoagulation Clinical Pharmacist-Supervisor) for their staff support of this interdisciplinary program. We thank the patients and their families for their participation in the program and commitment to the lifestyle changes. We also thank the following individuals for their contributions to this program: Lisa Wagaman, RDN, Karen Soong, PharmD, Sara S. Ali, PharmD, Suzan Hua, PharmD, and Stephen Cooperman.

While cardiovascular mortality rates have declined, heart disease continues to be the leading cause of death in the US, and the number of people with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is rising.¹ CVD is more prevalent among military veterans than it is among nonveterans aged ≥ 25 years, and veteran status is associated with higher risk of incident heart disease after controlling for socioeconomic status, other medical diseases, depression, and lifestyle.^2-4 Combat exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and Purple Heart commendation are associated with higher rates of CVD, including adverse cardiovascular events.^5-7 Many patients seeking care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), including those who undergo cardiac catheterization, meet the criteria for multimorbidity (defined as having ≥ 2 chronic diseases⁸), which is common among veterans.^9,10 Multimorbidity presents a challenge for lifestyle intervention, as different diets may be prescribed to treat different conditions, such as Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, and low-glycemic diet for diabetes mellitus (DM). Veterans with CVD are often clinically complex and may require more multifaceted secondary prevention programs.

During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, effective secondary prevention intervention is needed more than ever. Older age, CVD, and common comorbidities, including hypertension, DM, and obesity, place patients at the highest risk for severe COVID-19 infection.¹¹ COVID-19 social distancing encourages vulnerable populations to stay home, which can make engaging in any levels of physical activity more challenging. The International Food Council found that 85% of adults have made a change to their food consumption pattern, including eating more, during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹² Thus, secondary CVD prevention programs for veterans need to provide treatment that addresses these specific challenges and can be delivered via telehealth for continuity of care after disruption of traditional services.

Nutrition may be the most powerful Ornish ICR component. The initial RCT conducted by Ornish and colleagues included only stress management training and a whole-food, plant-based (WFPB) diet, including grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds. The trial found 91% of participants experienced reduced angina after only 24 days.¹⁵ The only single-component intervention study resulting in partial reversal of atherosclerosis was a WFPB diet-only study, which documented regression of atherosclerotic plaques after 5 years, using coronary angiography in 73% of participants, with arrested progression in the other 27%.²² Participants reported no cardiovascular AEs after 12 years.²³ Furthermore, a number of other recent studies have demonstrated the benefits of WFPB diet-only interventions for type 2 DM (T2DM), hypertension, and obesity.^24-27 The Heart Disease Reversal Program (HDRP) was developed to create an interdisciplinary lifestyle intervention that emphasized nutrition for a broad population of veterans with atherosclerotic CVD, of varying levels of functional ability, to promote comprehensive CVD risk reduction and bring heart disease reversal intervention into routine clinical practice.

Program Description 

The Mental Health, Cardiology, and Nutrition and Food services all approved the launch of HDRP. We contacted veterans by mail, and 11% expressed interest (Figure). Among patients who received the initial mailed letter (prior to our accepting staff referrals), only 5% of patients who enrolled in HDRP reported previously being told about or prescribed a WFPB diet by any health care provider (HCP). Currently, patients are primarily referred to HDRP by Cardiology, Primary Care, and Mental Health services.

Design

HDRP is an adaptation of interdisciplinary lifestyle interventions that have resulted in regression of atherosclerotic blockages confirmed with invasive coronary angiography.^15-17,22,28 HDRP currently is offered in a Behavioral Medicine Clinic at the Sacramento US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (VAMC) in California. Program staff include a clinical health psychologist who organizes, coordinates, and act as the lead facilitator of the program; registered dietitians; clinical pharmacists; and a consulting physician. Patients engage in the 4-month core HDRP program in small cohorts (ie, 6-10 patients), and spouses/partners are highly encouraged to attend all sessions.

Components

Telephone screening. Patients are screened for the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1). Patients engaging in a traditional CR program are included in the screening. Patients are informed that the program consists of lifestyle intervention, including emphasis on following a WFPB diet.

A psychologist delivers the physical activity component. Patients are encouraged to meet the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology recommendations for aerobic exercise (at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week) through a walking program.³⁵ Patients with medical contraindications (eg, severe pain, mobility restrictions) are encouraged to follow the exercise/activity recommendations they had been given by their primary care provider (PCP), physical therapist, or other HCP.

A psychologist provides evidence-based cognitive behavioral stress management (CBSM) training, adapted from models developed for patients with stable ischemic heart disease, HIV/AIDS, and cancer.^36-38 CBSM is a psychotherapy grounded in stress/coping theory and cognitive behavioral theory of psychopathology that integrates cognitive restructuring, coping skills training, communication/assertiveness training, anger management, and mindfulness/acceptance-based approaches. Additional emphasis is placed on assisting patients’ adjustment to the lifestyle challenges for following a plant-based diet, dealing with food cravings and emotional eating, and connecting lifestyle change to patients’ deepest values and goals.

A clinical pharmacist conducts a medication reconciliation for each patient at baseline. The pharmacist consults with each patient’s PCP, cardiologist, and HDRP consulting physician, as needed, to ensure safe adjustments to medications. Pharmacists also provide education on medications at group sessions.

After completion of the 12-week core program, graduates are encouraged to attend the monthly graduates’ group indefinitely, and as often as they desire to promote maintenance of the disease reversal lifestyle. Patients are encouraged to complete our recommended fasting laboratory work every 3 to 6 months to facilitate maintenance of treatment gains.

Program Evaluation

Patients frequently reported that the group format was vital to their success. Patients requested a cooking class, yet we lacked a full teaching kitchen. Integrating plant-based meal samples at every session and cooking videos helped. Patients reported that 100% adherence to the WFPB diet led to significant changes in their food preferences, including a loss of interest in meat.³⁹ Patients encouraged us to keep the “disease reversal” language and focus. One veteran stated: “Disease reversal, that is the reason I called you when I got your letter.” Showing before and after images of coronary angiograms and cardiac positron emission tomography scans depicting regression of atherosclerotic plaque and restored myocardial perfusion were described as highly motivating and generated willingness to commit to a more aggressive lifestyle change.³¹

Patients routinely stated that they lacked understanding of their laboratory test results, which HDRP remedied. Some patients reported their adult children followed a plant-based diet, and our program resulted in a new commonality and source of bonding that was highly valued. Some patients reported that HDRP was helpful for controlling their COVID-19 anxiety and feeling in control of their health. Satisfaction surveys were completed by participants at the end of the core program, which demonstrated very high satisfaction with and acceptability of HDRP (Table 3).

COVID-19 Response

Face-to-face group appointments were converted to videoconferencing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While HDRP always promoted the use of technology and mHealth tools, the pandemic led us to develop novel technology-based interventions.⁴⁰ One cohort transitioned from in-person to videoconferencing sessions, and 2 cohorts recently started this format and are ongoing. We have successfully used videoconferencing with Cisco Webex, the VA-approved backup platform, as we encountered technical barriers when using VA Video Connect. Program materials were shared electronically, and participants sent blood pressure/sugar logs by secure messaging. Guidance for online grocery shopping with home delivery was provided, and research on the benefits of the HDRP lifestyle on immune function was incorporated.

The stress management component incorporated coping with COVID-19, including normalizing common emotional difficulties with sheltering-in-place and quarantine, acknowledging and processing fear and anxiety related to being at very high risk for severe COVID-19. We presented heart disease reversal as an urgent and feasible goal during the pandemic both reducing risk of premature death and major adverse cardiovascular events in the long-term and also reducing personal risk of severe COVID complications. The new VA COVID Coach app was also presented as a resource. Reputable sources of COVID-19 and public health information were shared. Walking continued to be the primary recommended form of exercise, while indoor home exercise options were promoted during the periods of very poor air quality due to the widespread California fires and smoke.

Considering the research suggesting benefits of our intervention for treating T2DM,promoting sustained weight loss, and promoting comprehensive cardiometabolic risk reduction, we have begun accepting referrals for patients with any type of atherosclerotic CVD (eg, peripheral artery disease, carotid artery disease), patients with T2DM (without CVD), and patients with only a history of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack.^24-27 Vascular surgery has become a new referral source, primarily for patients with peripheral and carotid artery diseases. Finally, we are leveraging videoconferencing and accepting referrals across the VA Northern California Health Care System (VANCHCS)catchment (from the California-Oregon state border to the San Francisco Bay Area). This also helps address a long-standing problem with reaching the many rural veterans who live far from a VA clinic. We successfully implemented a consult/referral process within the EHR that is available to providers across VANCHCS.

Discussion

The efficacy and effectiveness of reversal programs are well established in intensive programs (eg, ICR), yet such programs have yet to be streamlined and disseminated broadly into routine clinical care. HDRP has endeavored to address this by emphasizing nutrition relative to other program components. We have learned that the words “disease reversal” are very often the reason patients initially reach out or accept referral to our program.

Consistent with past research on plant-based nutrition interventions, the group format was indispensable.⁴¹ Individual sessions with a clinical health psychologist enabled tailored feedback and education on how behavior changes could impact laboratory results and how certain psychosocial factors could support success. Participants reported that seeing significantly favorable laboratory results was highly motivating and confirmed the power of their lifestyle changes. Furthermore, a psychosocial health assessment with individual sessions promoted a tailored treatment plan with targeted clinical interventions, such as behavioral health education, motivational interviewing, and advanced methods, including cognitive behavioral therapy and techniques drawn from dialectical behavior therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy.

Veterans with multimorbidity face the difficult task of learning and maintaining a complex disease self-management program and implementing a lifestyle approach that is feasible, effective, promotes weight loss, and treats multiple conditions. HDRP is a model approach for this population, as demonstrated by a recent case report of a 65-year-old male veteran with atherosclerotic CVD, T2DM, hypertension, and myasthenia gravis who had 2 heart attacks within 2 months.⁴² His neurologic disease precluded significant physical activity. Although he achieved some initial weight loss through lifestyle changes, he continued to have daily angina despite optimal and aggressive cardiology management. After enrolling in HDRP and adopting the WFPB diet, the patient reported almost complete resolution of angina within 1 month, similar to that found in other studies.¹⁵

The literature suggests that concern over the acceptability of plant-based diets and patients’ ability to adhere to them long-term may be misplaced. A review paper on dietary interventions lasting > 1 year found that 51 to 61% of vegetarian and vegan study participants had maintained dietary adherence, while 20 to 55% of omnivorous diet intervention participants adhered to their study diets.⁴³ Remarkably, there were no statistically significant differences in the acceptability of the vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous diets in the studies reviewed.⁴³ Recent dietary research also suggests that providing patients with higher goals (eg, adopting a vegan diet instead of only moderate dietary changes) results in greater weight loss and maintenance.²⁶ HDRP provides training on consumption of whole plant foods, which may offer patients a unique advantage for maximizing results and higher adherence over time.

Limitations

Hands-on cooking instruction was not provided at our VAMC. The total time of the intervention was significantly less in HDRP (25 hours) than it was for the Ornish ICR program (72 hours), which may hinder long-term adherence. Without an exercise facility, we were not able to provide more detailed exercise instruction and supervised exercise.

Program Improvements Planned

There are a number of improvements that are planned for HDRP. First, the program anticipates requesting medical clearance at the telephone screening stage for self-referred patients. Second, HDRP will provide regular presentations on the program to VAMC clinics and community-based outpatient clinics, including reminders about inclusion/exclusion criteria and the referral process, and to solicit feedback on processes. Third, we hope to routinely provide education and address common questions and concerns of HCPs, including expected results. Fourth, we would like to lengthen the patient commitment to HDRP (eg, 1- to 2-year commitment to the graduate group), consistent with other HDRPs.²⁸ Fifth, we hope to further integrate technology-based components to promote behavior change/maintenance, such as automated text messaging.

Conclusions

Although our patient population was self-selected for participation, early program evaluation demonstrates high acceptability. Very few patients had ever been told about a heart disease reversing lifestyle, and we found direct-to-patient clinical outreach an effective method for launching a disease reversal program (optimally timed with HCP presentations). Furthermore, the program is adaptable to current restrictions on in-person appointments due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and much more convenient for rural veterans who live far from any VA clinic. Being able to offer sustainable health care for individuals during unexpected public health crises is critically important. Additionally, treating veterans who are most vulnerable to pandemic illness due to existing medical conditions, such as CVD, should be a high priority. Last, HDRP also may represent a novel integrated treatment for COVID-19 anxiety and secondary CVD prevention, as lifestyle habits are optimized to improve chronic diseases that elevate risk for severe COVID-19 infection and mortality, as well as including coping strategies consistent with evidence-based psychotherapies for anxiety disorders.⁴⁴

We believe that beyond the clinical benefits to patients, there is significant value and benefit added to the health care system by offering an intervention within the “disease reversal” paradigm. Efforts of the health care team to reverse a disease can be considered the highest aim of medicine and health care.⁴⁵

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. We give special thanks to David M. Gellerman, MD, PhD, and David W. Schafer, PsyD, for providing Mental Health Service support for initiating the Heart Disease Reversal Program, and to Joseph Giorgio, PsyD (Program Manager, Integrated Care Program) for sustaining it. We thank Amogh Bhat, MD, Chief of Cardiology, for his continued support and partnership with the Cardiology Department. We express thanks to Stephanie Mohney, RDN (Chief, Nutrition and Food Service), Amy Klotz, RDN (Supervisory Dietician), Sian M. Carr-Lopez, PharmD (Associate Chief of Pharmacy, Primary Care), and Michelle Rand, PharmD, CACP (Anticoagulation Clinical Pharmacist-Supervisor) for their staff support of this interdisciplinary program. We thank the patients and their families for their participation in the program and commitment to the lifestyle changes. We also thank the following individuals for their contributions to this program: Lisa Wagaman, RDN, Karen Soong, PharmD, Sara S. Ali, PharmD, Suzan Hua, PharmD, and Stephen Cooperman.

Background: New-onset POAF occurs with 10% of noncardiac surgery and 15%-42% of cardiac surgery. POAF is believed to be self-limiting and most patients revert to sinus rhythm before hospital discharge. Previous studies on this topic are both limited and conflicting, but several suggest there is an association of stroke and mortality with POAF.

New-onset POAF was associated with increased risk of early stroke (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.80) and early mortality (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88). POAF also was associated with risk for long-term stroke (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77) and long-term mortality (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.49). The risk of long-term stroke from new-onset POAF was highest among patients who received noncardiac surgery.

Despite identifying high-quality studies with thoughtful analysis, some data had the potential for publication bias. The representative sample did not report paroxysmal vs. persistent atrial fibrillation separately. Furthermore, the study had the potential to be confounded by detection bias of preexisting atrial fibrillation.

Bottom line: New-onset POAF is associated with early and long-term risk of stroke and mortality. Subsequent strategies to reduce this risk have yet to be determined.

Citation: Lin MH et al. Perioperative/postoperative atrial fibrillation and risk of subsequent stroke and/or mortality. Stroke. 2019 May;50:1364-71.

Dr. Mayer is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: New-onset POAF occurs with 10% of noncardiac surgery and 15%-42% of cardiac surgery. POAF is believed to be self-limiting and most patients revert to sinus rhythm before hospital discharge. Previous studies on this topic are both limited and conflicting, but several suggest there is an association of stroke and mortality with POAF.

New-onset POAF was associated with increased risk of early stroke (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.80) and early mortality (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88). POAF also was associated with risk for long-term stroke (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77) and long-term mortality (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.49). The risk of long-term stroke from new-onset POAF was highest among patients who received noncardiac surgery.

Despite identifying high-quality studies with thoughtful analysis, some data had the potential for publication bias. The representative sample did not report paroxysmal vs. persistent atrial fibrillation separately. Furthermore, the study had the potential to be confounded by detection bias of preexisting atrial fibrillation.

Bottom line: New-onset POAF is associated with early and long-term risk of stroke and mortality. Subsequent strategies to reduce this risk have yet to be determined.

Citation: Lin MH et al. Perioperative/postoperative atrial fibrillation and risk of subsequent stroke and/or mortality. Stroke. 2019 May;50:1364-71.

Dr. Mayer is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: New-onset POAF occurs with 10% of noncardiac surgery and 15%-42% of cardiac surgery. POAF is believed to be self-limiting and most patients revert to sinus rhythm before hospital discharge. Previous studies on this topic are both limited and conflicting, but several suggest there is an association of stroke and mortality with POAF.

New-onset POAF was associated with increased risk of early stroke (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.80) and early mortality (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88). POAF also was associated with risk for long-term stroke (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77) and long-term mortality (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.49). The risk of long-term stroke from new-onset POAF was highest among patients who received noncardiac surgery.

Despite identifying high-quality studies with thoughtful analysis, some data had the potential for publication bias. The representative sample did not report paroxysmal vs. persistent atrial fibrillation separately. Furthermore, the study had the potential to be confounded by detection bias of preexisting atrial fibrillation.

Bottom line: New-onset POAF is associated with early and long-term risk of stroke and mortality. Subsequent strategies to reduce this risk have yet to be determined.

Citation: Lin MH et al. Perioperative/postoperative atrial fibrillation and risk of subsequent stroke and/or mortality. Stroke. 2019 May;50:1364-71.

Dr. Mayer is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.

Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.

The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.

If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).

The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”

The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.

University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.

Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.

“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”

For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.

Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.

Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).

Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.

Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.

“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”

In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.

“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”

Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.

Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.

The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.

If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).

The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”

The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.

University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.

Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.

“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”

For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.

Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.

Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).

Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.

Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.

“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”

In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.

“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”

Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.

Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.

The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.

If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).

The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”

The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.

University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.

Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.

“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”

For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.

Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.

Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).

Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.

Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.

“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”

In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.

“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”

Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Changes in hormones, body composition, lipids, and vascular health during the menopause transition can increase a woman’s chance of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) after menopause, the American Heart Association said in a scientific statement.

“This statement aims to raise awareness of both healthcare providers and women about the menopause transition as a time of increasing heart disease risk,” Samar R. El Khoudary, PhD, MPH, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“As such, it emphasizes the importance of monitoring women’s health during midlife and targeting this stage as a critical window for applying early intervention strategies that aim to maintain a healthy heart and reduce the risk of heart disease,” said Dr. El Khoudary, of the University of Pittsburgh.

The statement was published online Nov. 30 in Circulation.
 

Evolution in knowledge

During the past 20 years, knowledge of how menopause might contribute to CVD has evolved “dramatically,” Dr. El Khoudary noted. The accumulated data consistently point to the menopause transition as a time of change in heart health.

“Importantly,” she said, the latest AHA guidelines for CVD prevention in women, published in 2011, do not include data now available on the menopause transition as a time of increased CVD risk.

“As such, there is a compelling need to discuss the implications of the accumulating body of literature on this topic,” said Dr. El Khoudary.

The statement provides a contemporary synthesis of the existing data on menopause and how it relates to CVD, the leading cause of death of U.S. women.

Earlier age at natural menopause has generally been found to be a marker of greater CVD risk. Iatrogenically induced menopause (bilateral oophorectomy) during the premenopausal period is also associated with higher CVD risk, the data suggest.

Vasomotor symptoms are associated with worse levels of CVD risk factors and measures of subclinical atherosclerosis. Sleep disturbance has also been linked to greater risk for subclinical CVD and worse CV health indexes in women during midlife.

Increases in central/visceral fat and decreases in lean muscle mass are more pronounced during the menopause transition. This increased central adiposity is associated with increased risk for mortality, even among those with normal body mass index, the writing group found.

Increases in lipid levels (LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B), metabolic syndrome risk, and vascular remodeling at midlife are driven by the menopause transition more than aging, whereas increases in blood pressure, insulin level, and glucose level are likely more influenced by chronological aging, they reported.
 

Lifestyle interventions

The writing group noted that, because of the increase in overall life expectancy in the United States, a significant proportion of women will spend up to 40% of their lives after menopause.

Yet data suggest that only 7.2% of women transitioning to menopause are meeting physical activity guidelines and that fewer than 20% of those women are consistently maintaining a healthy diet.

Limited data from randomized, controlled trials suggest that a multidimensional lifestyle intervention during the menopause transition can prevent weight gain and reduce blood pressure and levels of triglycerides, blood glucose, and insulin and reduce the incidence of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis, they pointed out.

“Novel data” indicate a reversal in the associations of HDL cholesterol with CVD risk over the menopause transition, suggesting that higher HDL cholesterol levels may not consistently reflect good cardiovascular health in middle-aged women, the group noted.

There are also data suggesting that starting menopause hormone therapy when younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause is associated with reduced CVD risk.

The group said further research is needed into the cardiometabolic effects of menopause hormone therapy, including effects associated with form, route, and duration of administration, in women traversing menopause.

They also noted that data for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and improved survival with lipid-lowering interventions “remain elusive” for women and that further study is needed to develop evidence-based recommendations tailored specifically to women.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. El Khoudary has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Changes in hormones, body composition, lipids, and vascular health during the menopause transition can increase a woman’s chance of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) after menopause, the American Heart Association said in a scientific statement.

“This statement aims to raise awareness of both healthcare providers and women about the menopause transition as a time of increasing heart disease risk,” Samar R. El Khoudary, PhD, MPH, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“As such, it emphasizes the importance of monitoring women’s health during midlife and targeting this stage as a critical window for applying early intervention strategies that aim to maintain a healthy heart and reduce the risk of heart disease,” said Dr. El Khoudary, of the University of Pittsburgh.

The statement was published online Nov. 30 in Circulation.
 

Evolution in knowledge

During the past 20 years, knowledge of how menopause might contribute to CVD has evolved “dramatically,” Dr. El Khoudary noted. The accumulated data consistently point to the menopause transition as a time of change in heart health.

“Importantly,” she said, the latest AHA guidelines for CVD prevention in women, published in 2011, do not include data now available on the menopause transition as a time of increased CVD risk.

“As such, there is a compelling need to discuss the implications of the accumulating body of literature on this topic,” said Dr. El Khoudary.

The statement provides a contemporary synthesis of the existing data on menopause and how it relates to CVD, the leading cause of death of U.S. women.

Earlier age at natural menopause has generally been found to be a marker of greater CVD risk. Iatrogenically induced menopause (bilateral oophorectomy) during the premenopausal period is also associated with higher CVD risk, the data suggest.

Vasomotor symptoms are associated with worse levels of CVD risk factors and measures of subclinical atherosclerosis. Sleep disturbance has also been linked to greater risk for subclinical CVD and worse CV health indexes in women during midlife.

Increases in central/visceral fat and decreases in lean muscle mass are more pronounced during the menopause transition. This increased central adiposity is associated with increased risk for mortality, even among those with normal body mass index, the writing group found.

Increases in lipid levels (LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B), metabolic syndrome risk, and vascular remodeling at midlife are driven by the menopause transition more than aging, whereas increases in blood pressure, insulin level, and glucose level are likely more influenced by chronological aging, they reported.
 

Lifestyle interventions

The writing group noted that, because of the increase in overall life expectancy in the United States, a significant proportion of women will spend up to 40% of their lives after menopause.

Yet data suggest that only 7.2% of women transitioning to menopause are meeting physical activity guidelines and that fewer than 20% of those women are consistently maintaining a healthy diet.

Limited data from randomized, controlled trials suggest that a multidimensional lifestyle intervention during the menopause transition can prevent weight gain and reduce blood pressure and levels of triglycerides, blood glucose, and insulin and reduce the incidence of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis, they pointed out.

“Novel data” indicate a reversal in the associations of HDL cholesterol with CVD risk over the menopause transition, suggesting that higher HDL cholesterol levels may not consistently reflect good cardiovascular health in middle-aged women, the group noted.

There are also data suggesting that starting menopause hormone therapy when younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause is associated with reduced CVD risk.

The group said further research is needed into the cardiometabolic effects of menopause hormone therapy, including effects associated with form, route, and duration of administration, in women traversing menopause.

They also noted that data for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and improved survival with lipid-lowering interventions “remain elusive” for women and that further study is needed to develop evidence-based recommendations tailored specifically to women.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. El Khoudary has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Changes in hormones, body composition, lipids, and vascular health during the menopause transition can increase a woman’s chance of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) after menopause, the American Heart Association said in a scientific statement.

“This statement aims to raise awareness of both healthcare providers and women about the menopause transition as a time of increasing heart disease risk,” Samar R. El Khoudary, PhD, MPH, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“As such, it emphasizes the importance of monitoring women’s health during midlife and targeting this stage as a critical window for applying early intervention strategies that aim to maintain a healthy heart and reduce the risk of heart disease,” said Dr. El Khoudary, of the University of Pittsburgh.

The statement was published online Nov. 30 in Circulation.
 

Evolution in knowledge

During the past 20 years, knowledge of how menopause might contribute to CVD has evolved “dramatically,” Dr. El Khoudary noted. The accumulated data consistently point to the menopause transition as a time of change in heart health.

“Importantly,” she said, the latest AHA guidelines for CVD prevention in women, published in 2011, do not include data now available on the menopause transition as a time of increased CVD risk.

“As such, there is a compelling need to discuss the implications of the accumulating body of literature on this topic,” said Dr. El Khoudary.

The statement provides a contemporary synthesis of the existing data on menopause and how it relates to CVD, the leading cause of death of U.S. women.

Earlier age at natural menopause has generally been found to be a marker of greater CVD risk. Iatrogenically induced menopause (bilateral oophorectomy) during the premenopausal period is also associated with higher CVD risk, the data suggest.

Vasomotor symptoms are associated with worse levels of CVD risk factors and measures of subclinical atherosclerosis. Sleep disturbance has also been linked to greater risk for subclinical CVD and worse CV health indexes in women during midlife.

Increases in central/visceral fat and decreases in lean muscle mass are more pronounced during the menopause transition. This increased central adiposity is associated with increased risk for mortality, even among those with normal body mass index, the writing group found.

Increases in lipid levels (LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B), metabolic syndrome risk, and vascular remodeling at midlife are driven by the menopause transition more than aging, whereas increases in blood pressure, insulin level, and glucose level are likely more influenced by chronological aging, they reported.
 

Lifestyle interventions

The writing group noted that, because of the increase in overall life expectancy in the United States, a significant proportion of women will spend up to 40% of their lives after menopause.

Yet data suggest that only 7.2% of women transitioning to menopause are meeting physical activity guidelines and that fewer than 20% of those women are consistently maintaining a healthy diet.

Limited data from randomized, controlled trials suggest that a multidimensional lifestyle intervention during the menopause transition can prevent weight gain and reduce blood pressure and levels of triglycerides, blood glucose, and insulin and reduce the incidence of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis, they pointed out.

“Novel data” indicate a reversal in the associations of HDL cholesterol with CVD risk over the menopause transition, suggesting that higher HDL cholesterol levels may not consistently reflect good cardiovascular health in middle-aged women, the group noted.

There are also data suggesting that starting menopause hormone therapy when younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause is associated with reduced CVD risk.

The group said further research is needed into the cardiometabolic effects of menopause hormone therapy, including effects associated with form, route, and duration of administration, in women traversing menopause.

They also noted that data for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and improved survival with lipid-lowering interventions “remain elusive” for women and that further study is needed to develop evidence-based recommendations tailored specifically to women.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. El Khoudary has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

Background: Heart failure is a known risk factor for postoperative mortality and complications. Many of the studies used to establish this association, however, have focused on major high-risk surgeries and not on outpatient surgeries. Improved medical care has increased the survival rate of patients with heart failure and an increasing number of these patients are undergoing elective surgical procedures. This has led to an increasing need to better understand the degree to which heart failure affects preoperative risk in the outpatient setting.

Study design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Multiple Veteran’s Affairs Hospitals using data from the VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) and the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.

Synopsis: A total of 355,121 patients who underwent outpatient surgeries were analyzed. 19,353 patients had heart failure and 334,768 did not. Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.95 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.44), and this risk progressively increased as the ejection fraction decreased. The risk of 30-day complication also increased in patients with heart failure with an adjusted OR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02-1.19).

Limitations of this study include the patient population, which were all veterans and mostly male. The nature of the inclusion criteria was limiting as well, in that all the patients in this study were deemed fit for surgery. There were no data available for patients who had been considered but ultimately did not undergo surgery or for patients who were considered for ambulatory surgery but ultimately underwent inpatient surgery. These limitations may have resulted in a selection bias, which limited the generalizability of the study’s findings when assessing patients for ambulatory surgery.

Bottom line: Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative complication in ambulatory noncardiac surgery. The risk of postoperative mortality increased as systolic function decreased.

Citation: Lerman BJ et al. Association between heart failure and postoperative mortality among patients undergoing ambulatory noncardiac surgery. JAMA Surg. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2110.

Dr. Cheatham is a hospitalist and clinical educator at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Heart failure is a known risk factor for postoperative mortality and complications. Many of the studies used to establish this association, however, have focused on major high-risk surgeries and not on outpatient surgeries. Improved medical care has increased the survival rate of patients with heart failure and an increasing number of these patients are undergoing elective surgical procedures. This has led to an increasing need to better understand the degree to which heart failure affects preoperative risk in the outpatient setting.

Study design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Multiple Veteran’s Affairs Hospitals using data from the VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) and the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.

Synopsis: A total of 355,121 patients who underwent outpatient surgeries were analyzed. 19,353 patients had heart failure and 334,768 did not. Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.95 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.44), and this risk progressively increased as the ejection fraction decreased. The risk of 30-day complication also increased in patients with heart failure with an adjusted OR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02-1.19).

Limitations of this study include the patient population, which were all veterans and mostly male. The nature of the inclusion criteria was limiting as well, in that all the patients in this study were deemed fit for surgery. There were no data available for patients who had been considered but ultimately did not undergo surgery or for patients who were considered for ambulatory surgery but ultimately underwent inpatient surgery. These limitations may have resulted in a selection bias, which limited the generalizability of the study’s findings when assessing patients for ambulatory surgery.

Bottom line: Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative complication in ambulatory noncardiac surgery. The risk of postoperative mortality increased as systolic function decreased.

Citation: Lerman BJ et al. Association between heart failure and postoperative mortality among patients undergoing ambulatory noncardiac surgery. JAMA Surg. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2110.

Dr. Cheatham is a hospitalist and clinical educator at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Heart failure is a known risk factor for postoperative mortality and complications. Many of the studies used to establish this association, however, have focused on major high-risk surgeries and not on outpatient surgeries. Improved medical care has increased the survival rate of patients with heart failure and an increasing number of these patients are undergoing elective surgical procedures. This has led to an increasing need to better understand the degree to which heart failure affects preoperative risk in the outpatient setting.

Study design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Multiple Veteran’s Affairs Hospitals using data from the VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) and the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.

Synopsis: A total of 355,121 patients who underwent outpatient surgeries were analyzed. 19,353 patients had heart failure and 334,768 did not. Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.95 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.44), and this risk progressively increased as the ejection fraction decreased. The risk of 30-day complication also increased in patients with heart failure with an adjusted OR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02-1.19).

Limitations of this study include the patient population, which were all veterans and mostly male. The nature of the inclusion criteria was limiting as well, in that all the patients in this study were deemed fit for surgery. There were no data available for patients who had been considered but ultimately did not undergo surgery or for patients who were considered for ambulatory surgery but ultimately underwent inpatient surgery. These limitations may have resulted in a selection bias, which limited the generalizability of the study’s findings when assessing patients for ambulatory surgery.

Bottom line: Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative complication in ambulatory noncardiac surgery. The risk of postoperative mortality increased as systolic function decreased.

Citation: Lerman BJ et al. Association between heart failure and postoperative mortality among patients undergoing ambulatory noncardiac surgery. JAMA Surg. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2110.

Dr. Cheatham is a hospitalist and clinical educator at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The interventional cardiology community is mourning the loss of Anthony “Tony” Gershlick, MBBS, who died Nov. 20 of COVID-19. He was 69 years old.

Dr. Gershlick was a “talented, dedicated and much loved colleague,” reads a statement issued by the University of Leicester (England), where he was affiliated for more than 3 decades.

Dr. Gershlick, a consultant cardiologist at Glenfield Hospital and professor of interventional cardiology, University of Leicester, passed away in the intensive care unit of the hospital where he worked.

Nishan Canagarajah, PhD, president and vice-chancellor, University of Leicester, said Dr. Gershlick “left an indelible mark on the life of the University. He will be remembered with great affection by all and will be sorely missed.”

In 2017, Dr. Gershlick was honored with the inaugural British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) Lifetime Achievement Career Award for his “outstanding contribution to the specialty of coronary intervention.”

Gershlick was a pioneer in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention. He was the first UK cardiologist to implant a drug-eluting stent and a bioabsorbable stent, according to an article in the European Heart Journal.

Throughout his career, Dr. Gershlick had been involved in “practice-changing” research that changed the way patients are treated and led to national and international guidelines. He was the UK lead for more than 10 international trials, the university said.

“Tony was determined to push the boundaries of clinical care, to make a difference for his patients, and indeed, patients around the world,” said Philip Baker, DM, FMedSci, head of the College of Life Science, University of Leicester.

Andrew Furlong, medical director at the University Hospitals of Leicester, noted that Dr. Gershlick was “deeply committed to the training and development of junior doctors and registrars and known for his dedication to his field and his patients. He made a difference to many, many lives.”

According to the university, Dr. Gershlick had been working in non-COVID environments since April and was doing much of his work via virtual consultations. He took on cases from other consultants to help during the pandemic and had been working “tirelessly” to provide continuing care to cardiology patients.

The news of Dr. Gershlick’s passing prompted an outpouring of sadness and remembrances of him on Twitter.

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

The interventional cardiology community is mourning the loss of Anthony “Tony” Gershlick, MBBS, who died Nov. 20 of COVID-19. He was 69 years old.

Dr. Gershlick was a “talented, dedicated and much loved colleague,” reads a statement issued by the University of Leicester (England), where he was affiliated for more than 3 decades.

Dr. Gershlick, a consultant cardiologist at Glenfield Hospital and professor of interventional cardiology, University of Leicester, passed away in the intensive care unit of the hospital where he worked.

Nishan Canagarajah, PhD, president and vice-chancellor, University of Leicester, said Dr. Gershlick “left an indelible mark on the life of the University. He will be remembered with great affection by all and will be sorely missed.”

In 2017, Dr. Gershlick was honored with the inaugural British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) Lifetime Achievement Career Award for his “outstanding contribution to the specialty of coronary intervention.”

Gershlick was a pioneer in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention. He was the first UK cardiologist to implant a drug-eluting stent and a bioabsorbable stent, according to an article in the European Heart Journal.

Throughout his career, Dr. Gershlick had been involved in “practice-changing” research that changed the way patients are treated and led to national and international guidelines. He was the UK lead for more than 10 international trials, the university said.

“Tony was determined to push the boundaries of clinical care, to make a difference for his patients, and indeed, patients around the world,” said Philip Baker, DM, FMedSci, head of the College of Life Science, University of Leicester.

Andrew Furlong, medical director at the University Hospitals of Leicester, noted that Dr. Gershlick was “deeply committed to the training and development of junior doctors and registrars and known for his dedication to his field and his patients. He made a difference to many, many lives.”

According to the university, Dr. Gershlick had been working in non-COVID environments since April and was doing much of his work via virtual consultations. He took on cases from other consultants to help during the pandemic and had been working “tirelessly” to provide continuing care to cardiology patients.

The news of Dr. Gershlick’s passing prompted an outpouring of sadness and remembrances of him on Twitter.

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

The interventional cardiology community is mourning the loss of Anthony “Tony” Gershlick, MBBS, who died Nov. 20 of COVID-19. He was 69 years old.

Dr. Gershlick was a “talented, dedicated and much loved colleague,” reads a statement issued by the University of Leicester (England), where he was affiliated for more than 3 decades.

Dr. Gershlick, a consultant cardiologist at Glenfield Hospital and professor of interventional cardiology, University of Leicester, passed away in the intensive care unit of the hospital where he worked.

Nishan Canagarajah, PhD, president and vice-chancellor, University of Leicester, said Dr. Gershlick “left an indelible mark on the life of the University. He will be remembered with great affection by all and will be sorely missed.”

In 2017, Dr. Gershlick was honored with the inaugural British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) Lifetime Achievement Career Award for his “outstanding contribution to the specialty of coronary intervention.”

Gershlick was a pioneer in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention. He was the first UK cardiologist to implant a drug-eluting stent and a bioabsorbable stent, according to an article in the European Heart Journal.

Throughout his career, Dr. Gershlick had been involved in “practice-changing” research that changed the way patients are treated and led to national and international guidelines. He was the UK lead for more than 10 international trials, the university said.

“Tony was determined to push the boundaries of clinical care, to make a difference for his patients, and indeed, patients around the world,” said Philip Baker, DM, FMedSci, head of the College of Life Science, University of Leicester.

Andrew Furlong, medical director at the University Hospitals of Leicester, noted that Dr. Gershlick was “deeply committed to the training and development of junior doctors and registrars and known for his dedication to his field and his patients. He made a difference to many, many lives.”

According to the university, Dr. Gershlick had been working in non-COVID environments since April and was doing much of his work via virtual consultations. He took on cases from other consultants to help during the pandemic and had been working “tirelessly” to provide continuing care to cardiology patients.

The news of Dr. Gershlick’s passing prompted an outpouring of sadness and remembrances of him on Twitter.

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

Lowering blood pressure for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) does not improve functional recovery, a systematic review and meta-analysis shows, although it does reduce hematoma growth in these patients.

Despite the negative finding, the investigators observed broad variation in treatment effect among the studies they reviewed. They also found that target-based blood pressure treatment tended to improve function more than fixed-dose treatment.

“These data provide a strong message that early blood pressure–lowering treatment can control bleeding. This was not clear beforehand,” Craig Anderson, PhD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said in an interview.

“But these data also indicate that the management of blood pressure in ICH is complex,” he added. Timing, type of drug, and type of patient must be considered, he said. “We need more data to allow better individualizing of such therapy.”

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Controversy about the efficacy of blood pressure reduction for patients with ICH continues, despite studies that have examined this question. In this analysis, Dr. Anderson and colleagues sought to examine the evidence from randomized controlled trials in this area and identify potentially overlooked heterogeneity among trials.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases. They searched for randomized controlled trials of blood pressure management for adults with acute ICH, focusing on studies in which patients were enrolled within 7 days of ICH onset. These studies compared intensive blood pressure management with guideline-based management.

Investigators chose function, defined as Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, as their primary outcome. Radiologic outcomes included absolute (>6 mL) and proportional (>33%) hematoma growth at 24 hours. They used the intention to treat dataset from each trial in their statistical analyses and created generalized linear mixed models with prespecified covariables using a one-stage approach.
 

Variation by drug

A total of 7,094 studies were identified, of which 50 were eligible for inclusion. Their analysis encompassed 16 studies for which the respective investigators were willing to share patient-level data. The analysis included data on 6,221 patients. The mean age of the patients was 64.2 years, 36.4% were women, and the median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3.8 hours.

Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was approximately 11. Mean systolic blood pressure at baseline was 177 mm Hg, and mean hematoma volume was approximately 10.6 mL.

The difference in blood pressure between the intensive and guideline groups was approximately 8 mm Hg at 1 hour and 12 mm Hg at 24 hours.

Intensive blood pressure management did not affect function at 90 days. The adjusted odds ratio for unfavorable shift in mRS scores was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .503). Intensive blood pressure management did, however, reduce hematoma growth (absolute aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92; P = .007; relative aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .034).

In prespecified subgroup analyses, they found a trend toward adverse outcomes among patients who received renin-angiotensin blockers and a trend toward benefit for patients who received alpha- or beta-receptor antagonists or calcium channel blockers. They did not observe a clear association between time of treatment and outcome.

In addition to hematoma growth, other factors influence prognosis after ICH, such as the patient’s status before ICH (for example, cardiovascular risk factors, age, and hypertensive effects on the brain, kidneys, and heart), the location of ICH and its effects on surrounding structures, and complications of care in hospitals, such as infection and bleeding, said Dr. Anderson.

They are conducting two ongoing clinical trials in patients with ICH. One, INTERACT3, is evaluating a “care bundle” quality control package that includes early intensive blood pressure lowering for patients with large ICH who undergo surgery.

The other, INTERACT4, is evaluating early blood pressure control in the ambulance for patients with suspected acute stroke. At least one-fifth of those patients will have ICH, said Dr. Anderson.
 

Prevention is essential

Among patients with ICH, much of the bleeding occurs before presentation at the hospital, Louis R. Caplan, MD, a neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. Furthermore, the bleeding mainly occurs in the deep part of the brain where most of the important motor tracts are. “If those tracts are already hit, a little extra blood isn’t going to change things,” said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved in the research.

In addition, blood is pushed from inside the brain to the periphery until the pressure outside the brain is equal to the pressure inside it. “You can decrease the amount of bleeding significantly, but it probably doesn’t affect the outcome,” said Dr. Caplan.

One factor in patients’ apparent lack of functional improvement is that the mRS is not sensitive to minor changes in disability, he said. “You have to show a pretty important change for it to make a difference,” said Dr. Caplan.

In addition, recovery from a hemorrhage takes much longer than recovery from an infarct. Examining the population at 6 months would have been preferable to examining them at 90 days, but the investigators might not have 6-month data, said Dr. Caplan.

“The main thing is really prevention,” he concluded.

The study was conducted with funding from Takeda. Dr. Anderson reported receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and speaker fees from Takeda. Dr. Caplan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lowering blood pressure for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) does not improve functional recovery, a systematic review and meta-analysis shows, although it does reduce hematoma growth in these patients.

Despite the negative finding, the investigators observed broad variation in treatment effect among the studies they reviewed. They also found that target-based blood pressure treatment tended to improve function more than fixed-dose treatment.

“These data provide a strong message that early blood pressure–lowering treatment can control bleeding. This was not clear beforehand,” Craig Anderson, PhD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said in an interview.

“But these data also indicate that the management of blood pressure in ICH is complex,” he added. Timing, type of drug, and type of patient must be considered, he said. “We need more data to allow better individualizing of such therapy.”

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Controversy about the efficacy of blood pressure reduction for patients with ICH continues, despite studies that have examined this question. In this analysis, Dr. Anderson and colleagues sought to examine the evidence from randomized controlled trials in this area and identify potentially overlooked heterogeneity among trials.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases. They searched for randomized controlled trials of blood pressure management for adults with acute ICH, focusing on studies in which patients were enrolled within 7 days of ICH onset. These studies compared intensive blood pressure management with guideline-based management.

Investigators chose function, defined as Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, as their primary outcome. Radiologic outcomes included absolute (>6 mL) and proportional (>33%) hematoma growth at 24 hours. They used the intention to treat dataset from each trial in their statistical analyses and created generalized linear mixed models with prespecified covariables using a one-stage approach.
 

Variation by drug

A total of 7,094 studies were identified, of which 50 were eligible for inclusion. Their analysis encompassed 16 studies for which the respective investigators were willing to share patient-level data. The analysis included data on 6,221 patients. The mean age of the patients was 64.2 years, 36.4% were women, and the median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3.8 hours.

Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was approximately 11. Mean systolic blood pressure at baseline was 177 mm Hg, and mean hematoma volume was approximately 10.6 mL.

The difference in blood pressure between the intensive and guideline groups was approximately 8 mm Hg at 1 hour and 12 mm Hg at 24 hours.

Intensive blood pressure management did not affect function at 90 days. The adjusted odds ratio for unfavorable shift in mRS scores was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .503). Intensive blood pressure management did, however, reduce hematoma growth (absolute aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92; P = .007; relative aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .034).

In prespecified subgroup analyses, they found a trend toward adverse outcomes among patients who received renin-angiotensin blockers and a trend toward benefit for patients who received alpha- or beta-receptor antagonists or calcium channel blockers. They did not observe a clear association between time of treatment and outcome.

In addition to hematoma growth, other factors influence prognosis after ICH, such as the patient’s status before ICH (for example, cardiovascular risk factors, age, and hypertensive effects on the brain, kidneys, and heart), the location of ICH and its effects on surrounding structures, and complications of care in hospitals, such as infection and bleeding, said Dr. Anderson.

They are conducting two ongoing clinical trials in patients with ICH. One, INTERACT3, is evaluating a “care bundle” quality control package that includes early intensive blood pressure lowering for patients with large ICH who undergo surgery.

The other, INTERACT4, is evaluating early blood pressure control in the ambulance for patients with suspected acute stroke. At least one-fifth of those patients will have ICH, said Dr. Anderson.
 

Prevention is essential

Among patients with ICH, much of the bleeding occurs before presentation at the hospital, Louis R. Caplan, MD, a neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. Furthermore, the bleeding mainly occurs in the deep part of the brain where most of the important motor tracts are. “If those tracts are already hit, a little extra blood isn’t going to change things,” said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved in the research.

In addition, blood is pushed from inside the brain to the periphery until the pressure outside the brain is equal to the pressure inside it. “You can decrease the amount of bleeding significantly, but it probably doesn’t affect the outcome,” said Dr. Caplan.

One factor in patients’ apparent lack of functional improvement is that the mRS is not sensitive to minor changes in disability, he said. “You have to show a pretty important change for it to make a difference,” said Dr. Caplan.

In addition, recovery from a hemorrhage takes much longer than recovery from an infarct. Examining the population at 6 months would have been preferable to examining them at 90 days, but the investigators might not have 6-month data, said Dr. Caplan.

“The main thing is really prevention,” he concluded.

The study was conducted with funding from Takeda. Dr. Anderson reported receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and speaker fees from Takeda. Dr. Caplan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lowering blood pressure for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) does not improve functional recovery, a systematic review and meta-analysis shows, although it does reduce hematoma growth in these patients.

Despite the negative finding, the investigators observed broad variation in treatment effect among the studies they reviewed. They also found that target-based blood pressure treatment tended to improve function more than fixed-dose treatment.

“These data provide a strong message that early blood pressure–lowering treatment can control bleeding. This was not clear beforehand,” Craig Anderson, PhD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said in an interview.

“But these data also indicate that the management of blood pressure in ICH is complex,” he added. Timing, type of drug, and type of patient must be considered, he said. “We need more data to allow better individualizing of such therapy.”

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Controversy about the efficacy of blood pressure reduction for patients with ICH continues, despite studies that have examined this question. In this analysis, Dr. Anderson and colleagues sought to examine the evidence from randomized controlled trials in this area and identify potentially overlooked heterogeneity among trials.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases. They searched for randomized controlled trials of blood pressure management for adults with acute ICH, focusing on studies in which patients were enrolled within 7 days of ICH onset. These studies compared intensive blood pressure management with guideline-based management.

Investigators chose function, defined as Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, as their primary outcome. Radiologic outcomes included absolute (>6 mL) and proportional (>33%) hematoma growth at 24 hours. They used the intention to treat dataset from each trial in their statistical analyses and created generalized linear mixed models with prespecified covariables using a one-stage approach.
 

Variation by drug

A total of 7,094 studies were identified, of which 50 were eligible for inclusion. Their analysis encompassed 16 studies for which the respective investigators were willing to share patient-level data. The analysis included data on 6,221 patients. The mean age of the patients was 64.2 years, 36.4% were women, and the median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3.8 hours.

Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was approximately 11. Mean systolic blood pressure at baseline was 177 mm Hg, and mean hematoma volume was approximately 10.6 mL.

The difference in blood pressure between the intensive and guideline groups was approximately 8 mm Hg at 1 hour and 12 mm Hg at 24 hours.

Intensive blood pressure management did not affect function at 90 days. The adjusted odds ratio for unfavorable shift in mRS scores was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .503). Intensive blood pressure management did, however, reduce hematoma growth (absolute aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92; P = .007; relative aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .034).

In prespecified subgroup analyses, they found a trend toward adverse outcomes among patients who received renin-angiotensin blockers and a trend toward benefit for patients who received alpha- or beta-receptor antagonists or calcium channel blockers. They did not observe a clear association between time of treatment and outcome.

In addition to hematoma growth, other factors influence prognosis after ICH, such as the patient’s status before ICH (for example, cardiovascular risk factors, age, and hypertensive effects on the brain, kidneys, and heart), the location of ICH and its effects on surrounding structures, and complications of care in hospitals, such as infection and bleeding, said Dr. Anderson.

They are conducting two ongoing clinical trials in patients with ICH. One, INTERACT3, is evaluating a “care bundle” quality control package that includes early intensive blood pressure lowering for patients with large ICH who undergo surgery.

The other, INTERACT4, is evaluating early blood pressure control in the ambulance for patients with suspected acute stroke. At least one-fifth of those patients will have ICH, said Dr. Anderson.
 

Prevention is essential

Among patients with ICH, much of the bleeding occurs before presentation at the hospital, Louis R. Caplan, MD, a neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. Furthermore, the bleeding mainly occurs in the deep part of the brain where most of the important motor tracts are. “If those tracts are already hit, a little extra blood isn’t going to change things,” said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved in the research.

In addition, blood is pushed from inside the brain to the periphery until the pressure outside the brain is equal to the pressure inside it. “You can decrease the amount of bleeding significantly, but it probably doesn’t affect the outcome,” said Dr. Caplan.

One factor in patients’ apparent lack of functional improvement is that the mRS is not sensitive to minor changes in disability, he said. “You have to show a pretty important change for it to make a difference,” said Dr. Caplan.

In addition, recovery from a hemorrhage takes much longer than recovery from an infarct. Examining the population at 6 months would have been preferable to examining them at 90 days, but the investigators might not have 6-month data, said Dr. Caplan.

“The main thing is really prevention,” he concluded.

The study was conducted with funding from Takeda. Dr. Anderson reported receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and speaker fees from Takeda. Dr. Caplan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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