User login
SYNTAXES: Female benefit with CABG vanishes by 10 years
The beneficial effect on all-cause mortality of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery observed at 4 and 5 years in women with complex coronary disease seen in the SYNTAX trial is gone at 10 years.
If anything, the results suggest a mortality benefit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) mainly for men (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.02) and not for women (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51) in the SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study.
The sex-treatment interaction for all-cause mortality was significant at 5 years (P = .025) but not at 10 years (P = .952).
“I’m becoming very humble with trials because I’m not expecting the convergence of the curve. I was expecting like a surge, a further divergence,” senior author Patrick Serruys, MD, PhD, National University of Ireland, Galway, said in an interview. “You could say, at the end of the day, everybody dies. And that’s the life expectancy factor.”
Although female patients had slightly lower anatomic SYNTAX scores at randomization (27.0 vs. 29.2), they were on average 4 years older than men (mean age, 68 years) and had higher prevalence rates of diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease, he noted. “The other explanation is that we know that the bypass graft, the saphenous bypass graft, became vulnerable around 7 years; that’s probably the half-life.”
Overall, mortality in both men and women tended to be lower after CABG than after PCI, although the differences were not statistically significant, the authors reported August 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The 1,800-patient SYNTAX trial showed no difference in all-cause mortality at 5 years between CABG and PCI, although CABG was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and more favorable results among those with complex, three-vessel disease.
The findings were confirmed in 10-year follow-up reported last year from SYNTAXES, which analyzed only all-cause mortality.
Female sex, however, was an independent predictor of mortality with PCI at 4-years follow-up (HR, 2.87) in SYNTAX and led to sex being incorporated into the SYNTAX II score to help guide revascularization decisions. Notably, this interaction for all-cause mortality has not been seen in other studies.
Treatment effect by sex
In the new prespecified subgroup analysis, women had a higher crude rate of all-cause mortality at 10 years than men (32.8% vs. 24.7%; log-rank P = .002). This held true whether women were in the PCI group (33.0% vs. 27.0%; log-rank P = .053) or the CABG group (32.5% vs. 22.5%; log-rank P = .017).
In women, the mortality rate was significantly higher with PCI than with CABG at 5 years, but was no longer different at 10 years (33.0% vs. 32.5%; log-rank P = .601). This was largely caused by an uptick in deaths between 5 and 10 years in those treated with CABG, compared with PCI.
In men, the mortality rate was similar between PCI and CABG at 5 years, but tended to be higher with PCI at 10 years (27.0% vs. 22.5%; log-rank P = .082).
Asked about the possible late benefit for CABG in men, Dr. Serruys replied: “Of course, everyone had made a hypothesis – ‘let’s look at the use of internal mammary arteries in these patients, etc.’ – but I must be honest, we don’t have an explanation so far.”
Roxana Mehran, MD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, said with just 402 women and using a no-longer-available, first-generation (Taxus) stent, the findings are, unfortunately, not informative.
“For me, it would be important for these investigators to share their data for women so we can do a patient-based analysis to better figure out the differential between first-generation stents and how well we’re doing,” Dr. Mehran said.
“What’s really important is to have a study where you actually collect female-specific risk factors that are never, ever looked at, [such as] age at menopause or having had pregnancy-related complications, that predispose these women to more of an atherosclerotic risk. And, even so, to better understand their anatomy and what suits them better,” she said. “I just don’t think we know enough or have put enough effort into understanding the biology that is sex specific and different for men and women.”
Revising SYNTAX II score
Given the lack of a sex-treatment interaction in the analysis, Dr. Serruys and colleagues suggest that the SYNTAX II score “should be reevaluated for the prediction of all-cause mortality at 10 years.”
Lending further support to this is the fact that SYNTAX II score was similar between women who died at 5-10 years and those who died in the first 5 years after CABG (31.8 vs. 31.6).
“The authors rightfully ask whether the SYNTAX II score should be revised to remove female sex, and given the current study result this appears warranted,” Arnold H. Seto, MD, MPA, Long Beach (Calif.) Veterans Administration Hospital, said in a related editorial.
He pointed out that women in SYNTAXES treated with CABG tended to have a survival time 0.51 years longer than women treated with PCI (P = .07). Nonetheless, the lack of confirmation for a sex-specific treatment interaction in any other study – EXCEL, FREEDOM, BEST, PRECOMBAT, BARI, or MASS – strongly suggests that the interaction seen in SYNTAX is likely a “type 1 error.”
Rather than focusing on early mortality, which may represent relatively rare events that are susceptible to chance, Dr. Seto suggested “other endpoints such years of life saved, quality adjusted life-years, and MACE may better capture the benefits of different revascularization decisions, even if they have a higher risk for bias.”
A new risk model, SYNTAX score 2020, has been developed and will be published imminently, Dr. Serruys said in an interview.
The SYNTAX Extended Survival study was supported by the German Foundation of Heart Research. The SYNTAX trial, during 0- to 5-years of follow-up, was funded by Boston Scientific. Both sponsors had no role in study design or data collection, analyses, and interpretation, nor were they involved in the decision to publish the final manuscript. Dr. Serruys has received personal fees from Biosensors, Micel Technologies, Sinomedical Sciences Technology, Philips/Volcano, Xeltis, and HeartFlow, outside the submitted work. Dr. Seto reported research grants from Philips and Acist, and honoraria from Terumo, Getinge, Boston Scientific, General Electric, and Janssen.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The beneficial effect on all-cause mortality of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery observed at 4 and 5 years in women with complex coronary disease seen in the SYNTAX trial is gone at 10 years.
If anything, the results suggest a mortality benefit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) mainly for men (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.02) and not for women (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51) in the SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study.
The sex-treatment interaction for all-cause mortality was significant at 5 years (P = .025) but not at 10 years (P = .952).
“I’m becoming very humble with trials because I’m not expecting the convergence of the curve. I was expecting like a surge, a further divergence,” senior author Patrick Serruys, MD, PhD, National University of Ireland, Galway, said in an interview. “You could say, at the end of the day, everybody dies. And that’s the life expectancy factor.”
Although female patients had slightly lower anatomic SYNTAX scores at randomization (27.0 vs. 29.2), they were on average 4 years older than men (mean age, 68 years) and had higher prevalence rates of diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease, he noted. “The other explanation is that we know that the bypass graft, the saphenous bypass graft, became vulnerable around 7 years; that’s probably the half-life.”
Overall, mortality in both men and women tended to be lower after CABG than after PCI, although the differences were not statistically significant, the authors reported August 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The 1,800-patient SYNTAX trial showed no difference in all-cause mortality at 5 years between CABG and PCI, although CABG was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and more favorable results among those with complex, three-vessel disease.
The findings were confirmed in 10-year follow-up reported last year from SYNTAXES, which analyzed only all-cause mortality.
Female sex, however, was an independent predictor of mortality with PCI at 4-years follow-up (HR, 2.87) in SYNTAX and led to sex being incorporated into the SYNTAX II score to help guide revascularization decisions. Notably, this interaction for all-cause mortality has not been seen in other studies.
Treatment effect by sex
In the new prespecified subgroup analysis, women had a higher crude rate of all-cause mortality at 10 years than men (32.8% vs. 24.7%; log-rank P = .002). This held true whether women were in the PCI group (33.0% vs. 27.0%; log-rank P = .053) or the CABG group (32.5% vs. 22.5%; log-rank P = .017).
In women, the mortality rate was significantly higher with PCI than with CABG at 5 years, but was no longer different at 10 years (33.0% vs. 32.5%; log-rank P = .601). This was largely caused by an uptick in deaths between 5 and 10 years in those treated with CABG, compared with PCI.
In men, the mortality rate was similar between PCI and CABG at 5 years, but tended to be higher with PCI at 10 years (27.0% vs. 22.5%; log-rank P = .082).
Asked about the possible late benefit for CABG in men, Dr. Serruys replied: “Of course, everyone had made a hypothesis – ‘let’s look at the use of internal mammary arteries in these patients, etc.’ – but I must be honest, we don’t have an explanation so far.”
Roxana Mehran, MD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, said with just 402 women and using a no-longer-available, first-generation (Taxus) stent, the findings are, unfortunately, not informative.
“For me, it would be important for these investigators to share their data for women so we can do a patient-based analysis to better figure out the differential between first-generation stents and how well we’re doing,” Dr. Mehran said.
“What’s really important is to have a study where you actually collect female-specific risk factors that are never, ever looked at, [such as] age at menopause or having had pregnancy-related complications, that predispose these women to more of an atherosclerotic risk. And, even so, to better understand their anatomy and what suits them better,” she said. “I just don’t think we know enough or have put enough effort into understanding the biology that is sex specific and different for men and women.”
Revising SYNTAX II score
Given the lack of a sex-treatment interaction in the analysis, Dr. Serruys and colleagues suggest that the SYNTAX II score “should be reevaluated for the prediction of all-cause mortality at 10 years.”
Lending further support to this is the fact that SYNTAX II score was similar between women who died at 5-10 years and those who died in the first 5 years after CABG (31.8 vs. 31.6).
“The authors rightfully ask whether the SYNTAX II score should be revised to remove female sex, and given the current study result this appears warranted,” Arnold H. Seto, MD, MPA, Long Beach (Calif.) Veterans Administration Hospital, said in a related editorial.
He pointed out that women in SYNTAXES treated with CABG tended to have a survival time 0.51 years longer than women treated with PCI (P = .07). Nonetheless, the lack of confirmation for a sex-specific treatment interaction in any other study – EXCEL, FREEDOM, BEST, PRECOMBAT, BARI, or MASS – strongly suggests that the interaction seen in SYNTAX is likely a “type 1 error.”
Rather than focusing on early mortality, which may represent relatively rare events that are susceptible to chance, Dr. Seto suggested “other endpoints such years of life saved, quality adjusted life-years, and MACE may better capture the benefits of different revascularization decisions, even if they have a higher risk for bias.”
A new risk model, SYNTAX score 2020, has been developed and will be published imminently, Dr. Serruys said in an interview.
The SYNTAX Extended Survival study was supported by the German Foundation of Heart Research. The SYNTAX trial, during 0- to 5-years of follow-up, was funded by Boston Scientific. Both sponsors had no role in study design or data collection, analyses, and interpretation, nor were they involved in the decision to publish the final manuscript. Dr. Serruys has received personal fees from Biosensors, Micel Technologies, Sinomedical Sciences Technology, Philips/Volcano, Xeltis, and HeartFlow, outside the submitted work. Dr. Seto reported research grants from Philips and Acist, and honoraria from Terumo, Getinge, Boston Scientific, General Electric, and Janssen.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The beneficial effect on all-cause mortality of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery observed at 4 and 5 years in women with complex coronary disease seen in the SYNTAX trial is gone at 10 years.
If anything, the results suggest a mortality benefit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) mainly for men (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.02) and not for women (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51) in the SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study.
The sex-treatment interaction for all-cause mortality was significant at 5 years (P = .025) but not at 10 years (P = .952).
“I’m becoming very humble with trials because I’m not expecting the convergence of the curve. I was expecting like a surge, a further divergence,” senior author Patrick Serruys, MD, PhD, National University of Ireland, Galway, said in an interview. “You could say, at the end of the day, everybody dies. And that’s the life expectancy factor.”
Although female patients had slightly lower anatomic SYNTAX scores at randomization (27.0 vs. 29.2), they were on average 4 years older than men (mean age, 68 years) and had higher prevalence rates of diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease, he noted. “The other explanation is that we know that the bypass graft, the saphenous bypass graft, became vulnerable around 7 years; that’s probably the half-life.”
Overall, mortality in both men and women tended to be lower after CABG than after PCI, although the differences were not statistically significant, the authors reported August 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The 1,800-patient SYNTAX trial showed no difference in all-cause mortality at 5 years between CABG and PCI, although CABG was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and more favorable results among those with complex, three-vessel disease.
The findings were confirmed in 10-year follow-up reported last year from SYNTAXES, which analyzed only all-cause mortality.
Female sex, however, was an independent predictor of mortality with PCI at 4-years follow-up (HR, 2.87) in SYNTAX and led to sex being incorporated into the SYNTAX II score to help guide revascularization decisions. Notably, this interaction for all-cause mortality has not been seen in other studies.
Treatment effect by sex
In the new prespecified subgroup analysis, women had a higher crude rate of all-cause mortality at 10 years than men (32.8% vs. 24.7%; log-rank P = .002). This held true whether women were in the PCI group (33.0% vs. 27.0%; log-rank P = .053) or the CABG group (32.5% vs. 22.5%; log-rank P = .017).
In women, the mortality rate was significantly higher with PCI than with CABG at 5 years, but was no longer different at 10 years (33.0% vs. 32.5%; log-rank P = .601). This was largely caused by an uptick in deaths between 5 and 10 years in those treated with CABG, compared with PCI.
In men, the mortality rate was similar between PCI and CABG at 5 years, but tended to be higher with PCI at 10 years (27.0% vs. 22.5%; log-rank P = .082).
Asked about the possible late benefit for CABG in men, Dr. Serruys replied: “Of course, everyone had made a hypothesis – ‘let’s look at the use of internal mammary arteries in these patients, etc.’ – but I must be honest, we don’t have an explanation so far.”
Roxana Mehran, MD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, said with just 402 women and using a no-longer-available, first-generation (Taxus) stent, the findings are, unfortunately, not informative.
“For me, it would be important for these investigators to share their data for women so we can do a patient-based analysis to better figure out the differential between first-generation stents and how well we’re doing,” Dr. Mehran said.
“What’s really important is to have a study where you actually collect female-specific risk factors that are never, ever looked at, [such as] age at menopause or having had pregnancy-related complications, that predispose these women to more of an atherosclerotic risk. And, even so, to better understand their anatomy and what suits them better,” she said. “I just don’t think we know enough or have put enough effort into understanding the biology that is sex specific and different for men and women.”
Revising SYNTAX II score
Given the lack of a sex-treatment interaction in the analysis, Dr. Serruys and colleagues suggest that the SYNTAX II score “should be reevaluated for the prediction of all-cause mortality at 10 years.”
Lending further support to this is the fact that SYNTAX II score was similar between women who died at 5-10 years and those who died in the first 5 years after CABG (31.8 vs. 31.6).
“The authors rightfully ask whether the SYNTAX II score should be revised to remove female sex, and given the current study result this appears warranted,” Arnold H. Seto, MD, MPA, Long Beach (Calif.) Veterans Administration Hospital, said in a related editorial.
He pointed out that women in SYNTAXES treated with CABG tended to have a survival time 0.51 years longer than women treated with PCI (P = .07). Nonetheless, the lack of confirmation for a sex-specific treatment interaction in any other study – EXCEL, FREEDOM, BEST, PRECOMBAT, BARI, or MASS – strongly suggests that the interaction seen in SYNTAX is likely a “type 1 error.”
Rather than focusing on early mortality, which may represent relatively rare events that are susceptible to chance, Dr. Seto suggested “other endpoints such years of life saved, quality adjusted life-years, and MACE may better capture the benefits of different revascularization decisions, even if they have a higher risk for bias.”
A new risk model, SYNTAX score 2020, has been developed and will be published imminently, Dr. Serruys said in an interview.
The SYNTAX Extended Survival study was supported by the German Foundation of Heart Research. The SYNTAX trial, during 0- to 5-years of follow-up, was funded by Boston Scientific. Both sponsors had no role in study design or data collection, analyses, and interpretation, nor were they involved in the decision to publish the final manuscript. Dr. Serruys has received personal fees from Biosensors, Micel Technologies, Sinomedical Sciences Technology, Philips/Volcano, Xeltis, and HeartFlow, outside the submitted work. Dr. Seto reported research grants from Philips and Acist, and honoraria from Terumo, Getinge, Boston Scientific, General Electric, and Janssen.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA updates hydrochlorothiazide label to include nonmelanoma skin cancer risk
and undergo regular skin cancer screening, according to updates to the medication’s label.
The skin cancer risk is small, however, and patients should continue taking HCTZ, a commonly used diuretic and antihypertensive drug, unless their doctor says otherwise, according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration announcement about the labeling changes, which the agency approved on Aug. 20.
HCTZ, first approved in 1959, is associated with photosensitivity. Researchers identified a relationship between HCTZ and nonmelanoma skin cancer in postmarketing studies. Investigators have described dose-response patterns for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).
An FDA analysis found that the risk mostly was increased for SCC. The drug was associated with approximately one additional case of SCC per 16,000 patients per year. For white patients who received a cumulative dose of 50,000 mg or more, the risk was greater. In this patient population, HCTZ was associated with about one additional case of SCC per 6,700 patients per year, according to the label.
Reliably estimating the frequency of nonmelanoma skin cancer and establishing a causal relationship to drug exposure is not possible with the available postmarketing data, the label notes
“Treatment for nonmelanoma skin cancer is typically local and successful, with very low rates of death,” the FDA said. “Meanwhile, the risks of uncontrolled blood pressure can be severe and include life-threatening heart attacks or stroke. Given this information, patients should continue to use HCTZ and take protective skin care measures to reduce their risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, unless directed otherwise from their health care provider.”
Patients can reduce sun exposure by using broad-spectrum sunscreens with a sun protection factor value of at least 15, limiting time in the sun, and wearing protective clothing, the agency advised.
and undergo regular skin cancer screening, according to updates to the medication’s label.
The skin cancer risk is small, however, and patients should continue taking HCTZ, a commonly used diuretic and antihypertensive drug, unless their doctor says otherwise, according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration announcement about the labeling changes, which the agency approved on Aug. 20.
HCTZ, first approved in 1959, is associated with photosensitivity. Researchers identified a relationship between HCTZ and nonmelanoma skin cancer in postmarketing studies. Investigators have described dose-response patterns for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).
An FDA analysis found that the risk mostly was increased for SCC. The drug was associated with approximately one additional case of SCC per 16,000 patients per year. For white patients who received a cumulative dose of 50,000 mg or more, the risk was greater. In this patient population, HCTZ was associated with about one additional case of SCC per 6,700 patients per year, according to the label.
Reliably estimating the frequency of nonmelanoma skin cancer and establishing a causal relationship to drug exposure is not possible with the available postmarketing data, the label notes
“Treatment for nonmelanoma skin cancer is typically local and successful, with very low rates of death,” the FDA said. “Meanwhile, the risks of uncontrolled blood pressure can be severe and include life-threatening heart attacks or stroke. Given this information, patients should continue to use HCTZ and take protective skin care measures to reduce their risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, unless directed otherwise from their health care provider.”
Patients can reduce sun exposure by using broad-spectrum sunscreens with a sun protection factor value of at least 15, limiting time in the sun, and wearing protective clothing, the agency advised.
and undergo regular skin cancer screening, according to updates to the medication’s label.
The skin cancer risk is small, however, and patients should continue taking HCTZ, a commonly used diuretic and antihypertensive drug, unless their doctor says otherwise, according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration announcement about the labeling changes, which the agency approved on Aug. 20.
HCTZ, first approved in 1959, is associated with photosensitivity. Researchers identified a relationship between HCTZ and nonmelanoma skin cancer in postmarketing studies. Investigators have described dose-response patterns for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).
An FDA analysis found that the risk mostly was increased for SCC. The drug was associated with approximately one additional case of SCC per 16,000 patients per year. For white patients who received a cumulative dose of 50,000 mg or more, the risk was greater. In this patient population, HCTZ was associated with about one additional case of SCC per 6,700 patients per year, according to the label.
Reliably estimating the frequency of nonmelanoma skin cancer and establishing a causal relationship to drug exposure is not possible with the available postmarketing data, the label notes
“Treatment for nonmelanoma skin cancer is typically local and successful, with very low rates of death,” the FDA said. “Meanwhile, the risks of uncontrolled blood pressure can be severe and include life-threatening heart attacks or stroke. Given this information, patients should continue to use HCTZ and take protective skin care measures to reduce their risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, unless directed otherwise from their health care provider.”
Patients can reduce sun exposure by using broad-spectrum sunscreens with a sun protection factor value of at least 15, limiting time in the sun, and wearing protective clothing, the agency advised.
HM20 Virtual product theaters: Aug. 25-27
Aug. 25, 2020. 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. ET
Medical Product Theater: Worsening Symptoms and Hospitalization for Heart Failure: Increased Risk of Poor Outcomes and Opportunities to Enhance Care
Objectives
- Discuss hospitalization as a pivotal point in the clinical trajectory of heart failure.
- Highlight strategies for improvement and optimization of the treatment plan for patients with heart failure.
- Provide practical guidance for identifying predictors of worsening heart failure and educating on the importance of patients’ self-management.
Speaker
William T. Abraham, MD, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FESC, FRCPE
Professor of Medicine, Physiology, and Cell Biology
College of Medicine Distinguished Professor
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and the faculty will be compensated for time.
Aug. 26, 2020. 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. ET
Commercial Product Theater: A First Choice Treatment for the Inpatient Management of Stabilized Systolic HF Patients: An Evidence-Based Approach
Description
Patients hospitalized due to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are at considerable risk of readmission and mortality. This program will review the benefits and risks of starting therapy in the hospital to help prevent rehospitalization and reduce patient mortality.
Speaker
Hameed Ali, DO, SFHM
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine
Baylor Scott and White Health
Dallas, Texas
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and the faculty will be compensated for time.
Aug. 27, 2020. 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. ET
Commercial Product Theater: Selecting A First-Choice Therapy for Systolic HF: Meeting the Burden of Proof
Description
What is the burden of proof that needs to be met before a therapy can be selected for the treatment of systolic heart failure? Hear from Dr. Javed Butler, chairman of the Department of Medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, to learn more about selecting a first-choice therapy for your patients with systolic heart failure.
In this program, Dr. Butler will discuss how aligning your therapy selection to pathophysiologic pathways for HFrEF, it is possible to reduce mortality and morbidity while providing a proven safety and tolerability profile.
Regardless of your patients’ previous heart failure treatment history, following this program, you can feel confident selecting your first-choice therapy for your patients with HFrEF.
Speaker
Javed Butler, MD, MPH, MBA
Chairman, Department of Medicine
University of Mississippi Medical Center,
Jackson, Mississippi
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and the faculty will be compensated for time.
Aug. 25, 2020. 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. ET
Medical Product Theater: Worsening Symptoms and Hospitalization for Heart Failure: Increased Risk of Poor Outcomes and Opportunities to Enhance Care
Objectives
- Discuss hospitalization as a pivotal point in the clinical trajectory of heart failure.
- Highlight strategies for improvement and optimization of the treatment plan for patients with heart failure.
- Provide practical guidance for identifying predictors of worsening heart failure and educating on the importance of patients’ self-management.
Speaker
William T. Abraham, MD, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FESC, FRCPE
Professor of Medicine, Physiology, and Cell Biology
College of Medicine Distinguished Professor
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and the faculty will be compensated for time.
Aug. 26, 2020. 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. ET
Commercial Product Theater: A First Choice Treatment for the Inpatient Management of Stabilized Systolic HF Patients: An Evidence-Based Approach
Description
Patients hospitalized due to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are at considerable risk of readmission and mortality. This program will review the benefits and risks of starting therapy in the hospital to help prevent rehospitalization and reduce patient mortality.
Speaker
Hameed Ali, DO, SFHM
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine
Baylor Scott and White Health
Dallas, Texas
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and the faculty will be compensated for time.
Aug. 27, 2020. 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. ET
Commercial Product Theater: Selecting A First-Choice Therapy for Systolic HF: Meeting the Burden of Proof
Description
What is the burden of proof that needs to be met before a therapy can be selected for the treatment of systolic heart failure? Hear from Dr. Javed Butler, chairman of the Department of Medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, to learn more about selecting a first-choice therapy for your patients with systolic heart failure.
In this program, Dr. Butler will discuss how aligning your therapy selection to pathophysiologic pathways for HFrEF, it is possible to reduce mortality and morbidity while providing a proven safety and tolerability profile.
Regardless of your patients’ previous heart failure treatment history, following this program, you can feel confident selecting your first-choice therapy for your patients with HFrEF.
Speaker
Javed Butler, MD, MPH, MBA
Chairman, Department of Medicine
University of Mississippi Medical Center,
Jackson, Mississippi
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and the faculty will be compensated for time.
Aug. 25, 2020. 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. ET
Medical Product Theater: Worsening Symptoms and Hospitalization for Heart Failure: Increased Risk of Poor Outcomes and Opportunities to Enhance Care
Objectives
- Discuss hospitalization as a pivotal point in the clinical trajectory of heart failure.
- Highlight strategies for improvement and optimization of the treatment plan for patients with heart failure.
- Provide practical guidance for identifying predictors of worsening heart failure and educating on the importance of patients’ self-management.
Speaker
William T. Abraham, MD, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FESC, FRCPE
Professor of Medicine, Physiology, and Cell Biology
College of Medicine Distinguished Professor
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and the faculty will be compensated for time.
Aug. 26, 2020. 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. ET
Commercial Product Theater: A First Choice Treatment for the Inpatient Management of Stabilized Systolic HF Patients: An Evidence-Based Approach
Description
Patients hospitalized due to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are at considerable risk of readmission and mortality. This program will review the benefits and risks of starting therapy in the hospital to help prevent rehospitalization and reduce patient mortality.
Speaker
Hameed Ali, DO, SFHM
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine
Baylor Scott and White Health
Dallas, Texas
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and the faculty will be compensated for time.
Aug. 27, 2020. 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. ET
Commercial Product Theater: Selecting A First-Choice Therapy for Systolic HF: Meeting the Burden of Proof
Description
What is the burden of proof that needs to be met before a therapy can be selected for the treatment of systolic heart failure? Hear from Dr. Javed Butler, chairman of the Department of Medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, to learn more about selecting a first-choice therapy for your patients with systolic heart failure.
In this program, Dr. Butler will discuss how aligning your therapy selection to pathophysiologic pathways for HFrEF, it is possible to reduce mortality and morbidity while providing a proven safety and tolerability profile.
Regardless of your patients’ previous heart failure treatment history, following this program, you can feel confident selecting your first-choice therapy for your patients with HFrEF.
Speaker
Javed Butler, MD, MPH, MBA
Chairman, Department of Medicine
University of Mississippi Medical Center,
Jackson, Mississippi
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and the faculty will be compensated for time.
Humira topped drug-revenue list for 2019
Humira outsold all other drugs in 2019 in terms of revenue as cytokine inhibitor medications earned their way to three of the first four spots on the pharmaceutical best-seller list, according to a new analysis from the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science.
Sales of Humira (adalimumab) amounted to $21.4 billion before discounting, Murray Aitken, the institute’s executive director, and associates wrote in their analysis. That’s more than double the total of the anticoagulant Eliquis (apixaban), which brought in $9.9 billion in its last year before generic forms became available.
The next two spots were filled by the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor Enbrel (etanercept) with $8.1 billion in sales and the interleukin 12/23 inhibitor Stelara (ustekinumab) with sales totaling $6.6 billion, followed by the chemotherapy drug Keytruda (pembrolizumab) close behind after racking up $6.5 billion in sales, the researchers reported.
Total nondiscounted spending on all drugs in the U.S. market came to $511 billion in 2019, an increase of 5.7% over the $484 billion spent in 2018, based on data from the July 2020 IQVIA National Sales Perspectives.
These figures are “not adjusted for estimates of off-invoice discounts and rebates,” the authors noted, but they include “prescription and insulin products sold into chain and independent pharmacies, food store pharmacies, mail service pharmacies, long-term care facilities, hospitals, clinics, and other institutional settings.”
Those “discounts and rebates” do exist, however, and they can add up. Drug sales for 2019, “after deducting negotiated rebates, discounts, and other forms of price concessions, such as patient coupons or vouchers that offset out-of-pocket costs,” were $235 billion less than overall nondiscounted spending, the report noted.
Now that we’ve shown you the money, let’s take a quick look at volume. The leading drugs by number of dispensed prescriptions in 2019 were, not surprisingly, quite different. First, with 118 million prescriptions, was atorvastatin, followed by levothyroxine (113 million), lisinopril (96), amlodipine (89), and metoprolol (85), Mr. Aitken and associates reported.
Altogether, over 4.2 billion prescriptions were dispensed last year, with a couple of caveats: 90-day and 30-day fills were both counted as one prescription, and OTC drugs were not included, they pointed out.
Humira outsold all other drugs in 2019 in terms of revenue as cytokine inhibitor medications earned their way to three of the first four spots on the pharmaceutical best-seller list, according to a new analysis from the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science.
Sales of Humira (adalimumab) amounted to $21.4 billion before discounting, Murray Aitken, the institute’s executive director, and associates wrote in their analysis. That’s more than double the total of the anticoagulant Eliquis (apixaban), which brought in $9.9 billion in its last year before generic forms became available.
The next two spots were filled by the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor Enbrel (etanercept) with $8.1 billion in sales and the interleukin 12/23 inhibitor Stelara (ustekinumab) with sales totaling $6.6 billion, followed by the chemotherapy drug Keytruda (pembrolizumab) close behind after racking up $6.5 billion in sales, the researchers reported.
Total nondiscounted spending on all drugs in the U.S. market came to $511 billion in 2019, an increase of 5.7% over the $484 billion spent in 2018, based on data from the July 2020 IQVIA National Sales Perspectives.
These figures are “not adjusted for estimates of off-invoice discounts and rebates,” the authors noted, but they include “prescription and insulin products sold into chain and independent pharmacies, food store pharmacies, mail service pharmacies, long-term care facilities, hospitals, clinics, and other institutional settings.”
Those “discounts and rebates” do exist, however, and they can add up. Drug sales for 2019, “after deducting negotiated rebates, discounts, and other forms of price concessions, such as patient coupons or vouchers that offset out-of-pocket costs,” were $235 billion less than overall nondiscounted spending, the report noted.
Now that we’ve shown you the money, let’s take a quick look at volume. The leading drugs by number of dispensed prescriptions in 2019 were, not surprisingly, quite different. First, with 118 million prescriptions, was atorvastatin, followed by levothyroxine (113 million), lisinopril (96), amlodipine (89), and metoprolol (85), Mr. Aitken and associates reported.
Altogether, over 4.2 billion prescriptions were dispensed last year, with a couple of caveats: 90-day and 30-day fills were both counted as one prescription, and OTC drugs were not included, they pointed out.
Humira outsold all other drugs in 2019 in terms of revenue as cytokine inhibitor medications earned their way to three of the first four spots on the pharmaceutical best-seller list, according to a new analysis from the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science.
Sales of Humira (adalimumab) amounted to $21.4 billion before discounting, Murray Aitken, the institute’s executive director, and associates wrote in their analysis. That’s more than double the total of the anticoagulant Eliquis (apixaban), which brought in $9.9 billion in its last year before generic forms became available.
The next two spots were filled by the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor Enbrel (etanercept) with $8.1 billion in sales and the interleukin 12/23 inhibitor Stelara (ustekinumab) with sales totaling $6.6 billion, followed by the chemotherapy drug Keytruda (pembrolizumab) close behind after racking up $6.5 billion in sales, the researchers reported.
Total nondiscounted spending on all drugs in the U.S. market came to $511 billion in 2019, an increase of 5.7% over the $484 billion spent in 2018, based on data from the July 2020 IQVIA National Sales Perspectives.
These figures are “not adjusted for estimates of off-invoice discounts and rebates,” the authors noted, but they include “prescription and insulin products sold into chain and independent pharmacies, food store pharmacies, mail service pharmacies, long-term care facilities, hospitals, clinics, and other institutional settings.”
Those “discounts and rebates” do exist, however, and they can add up. Drug sales for 2019, “after deducting negotiated rebates, discounts, and other forms of price concessions, such as patient coupons or vouchers that offset out-of-pocket costs,” were $235 billion less than overall nondiscounted spending, the report noted.
Now that we’ve shown you the money, let’s take a quick look at volume. The leading drugs by number of dispensed prescriptions in 2019 were, not surprisingly, quite different. First, with 118 million prescriptions, was atorvastatin, followed by levothyroxine (113 million), lisinopril (96), amlodipine (89), and metoprolol (85), Mr. Aitken and associates reported.
Altogether, over 4.2 billion prescriptions were dispensed last year, with a couple of caveats: 90-day and 30-day fills were both counted as one prescription, and OTC drugs were not included, they pointed out.
Oleander extract for COVID-19? That’s a hard ‘no’ experts say
“Though renowned for its beauty and use in landscaping, this Mediterranean shrub is responsible for cases of accidental poisoning across the globe. All parts of the plant are poisonous,” Cassandra Quave, PhD, ethnobotanist and herbarium curator at Emory University, Atlanta, cautioned in an article in The Conversation, an independent, not-for-profit publication.
Oleandrin has properties similar to digoxin; the onset of toxicity occurs several hours after consumption.
The first symptoms of oleandrin poisoning may be gastrointestinal, such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea (which may contain blood), and loss of appetite.
After these first symptoms, the heart may be affected by tachyarrhythmia, bradyarrhythmia, premature ventricular contractions, or atrioventricular blockage. Xanthopsia (yellow vision), a burning sensation in the eyes, paralysis of the gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory symptoms may also occur.
Oleandrin poisoning may affect the central nervous system, as evidenced by drowsiness, tremors, seizures, collapse, and coma leading to death. When applied to the skin, oleander sap can cause skin irritations and allergic reactions characterized by dermatitis.
Diagnosis of oleandrin poisoning is mainly made on the basis of a description of the plant, how much of it was ingested, how much time has elapsed since ingestion, and symptoms. Confirmation of oleandrin in blood involves fluorescence polarization immunoassay, digoxin immunoassay, or liquid chromatography-electrospray tandem mass spectrometry.
Neither oleander nor oleandrin is approved by regulatory agencies as a prescription drug or dietary supplement.
In vitro study
Oleandrin for COVID-19 made headlines after President Trump met in the Oval Office with Andrew Whitney, vice chairman and director of Phoenix Biotechnology, along with Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, MD, and MyPillow founder/CEO Mike Lindell, a strong supporter of Trump and an investor in the biotech company, to learn about oleandrin, which Whitney called a “cure” for COVID-19, Axios reported.
In an in vitro study, researchers from Phoenix Biotechnology and the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, tested oleandrin against SARS-CoV-2 in cultured Vero cells.
“When administered both before and after virus infection, nanogram doses of oleandrin significantly inhibited replication by 45 to 3000-fold,” the researchers said in an article posted on bioRxiv, a free online archive and distribution service for unpublished preprints in the life sciences. The study has not been peer reviewed.
On the basis of these in vitro findings, the researchers said the plant extract has “potential to prevent disease and virus spread in persons recently exposed to SARS-CoV-2, as well as to prevent severe disease in persons at high risk.”
But it’s a far cry from test tube to human, one expert cautioned.
“This is an understatement: Care must be taken when inferring potential therapeutic benefits from in vitro antiviral effects,” Harlan Krumholz, MD, cardiologist and director, Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News.
“There is a chasm between a single in vitro study and any use in humans outside of a protocol. People should be cautioned about that distance and the need [to] avoid such remedies unless part of a credible research project,” said Krumholz.
Yet Lindell told Axios that, in the Oval Office meeting, Trump expressed enthusiasm for the Food and Drug Administration to allow oleandrin to be marketed as a dietary supplement or approved for COVID-19.
“This is really just nonsense and a distraction,” Jonathan Reiner, MD, of George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC, said on CNN.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Though renowned for its beauty and use in landscaping, this Mediterranean shrub is responsible for cases of accidental poisoning across the globe. All parts of the plant are poisonous,” Cassandra Quave, PhD, ethnobotanist and herbarium curator at Emory University, Atlanta, cautioned in an article in The Conversation, an independent, not-for-profit publication.
Oleandrin has properties similar to digoxin; the onset of toxicity occurs several hours after consumption.
The first symptoms of oleandrin poisoning may be gastrointestinal, such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea (which may contain blood), and loss of appetite.
After these first symptoms, the heart may be affected by tachyarrhythmia, bradyarrhythmia, premature ventricular contractions, or atrioventricular blockage. Xanthopsia (yellow vision), a burning sensation in the eyes, paralysis of the gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory symptoms may also occur.
Oleandrin poisoning may affect the central nervous system, as evidenced by drowsiness, tremors, seizures, collapse, and coma leading to death. When applied to the skin, oleander sap can cause skin irritations and allergic reactions characterized by dermatitis.
Diagnosis of oleandrin poisoning is mainly made on the basis of a description of the plant, how much of it was ingested, how much time has elapsed since ingestion, and symptoms. Confirmation of oleandrin in blood involves fluorescence polarization immunoassay, digoxin immunoassay, or liquid chromatography-electrospray tandem mass spectrometry.
Neither oleander nor oleandrin is approved by regulatory agencies as a prescription drug or dietary supplement.
In vitro study
Oleandrin for COVID-19 made headlines after President Trump met in the Oval Office with Andrew Whitney, vice chairman and director of Phoenix Biotechnology, along with Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, MD, and MyPillow founder/CEO Mike Lindell, a strong supporter of Trump and an investor in the biotech company, to learn about oleandrin, which Whitney called a “cure” for COVID-19, Axios reported.
In an in vitro study, researchers from Phoenix Biotechnology and the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, tested oleandrin against SARS-CoV-2 in cultured Vero cells.
“When administered both before and after virus infection, nanogram doses of oleandrin significantly inhibited replication by 45 to 3000-fold,” the researchers said in an article posted on bioRxiv, a free online archive and distribution service for unpublished preprints in the life sciences. The study has not been peer reviewed.
On the basis of these in vitro findings, the researchers said the plant extract has “potential to prevent disease and virus spread in persons recently exposed to SARS-CoV-2, as well as to prevent severe disease in persons at high risk.”
But it’s a far cry from test tube to human, one expert cautioned.
“This is an understatement: Care must be taken when inferring potential therapeutic benefits from in vitro antiviral effects,” Harlan Krumholz, MD, cardiologist and director, Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News.
“There is a chasm between a single in vitro study and any use in humans outside of a protocol. People should be cautioned about that distance and the need [to] avoid such remedies unless part of a credible research project,” said Krumholz.
Yet Lindell told Axios that, in the Oval Office meeting, Trump expressed enthusiasm for the Food and Drug Administration to allow oleandrin to be marketed as a dietary supplement or approved for COVID-19.
“This is really just nonsense and a distraction,” Jonathan Reiner, MD, of George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC, said on CNN.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Though renowned for its beauty and use in landscaping, this Mediterranean shrub is responsible for cases of accidental poisoning across the globe. All parts of the plant are poisonous,” Cassandra Quave, PhD, ethnobotanist and herbarium curator at Emory University, Atlanta, cautioned in an article in The Conversation, an independent, not-for-profit publication.
Oleandrin has properties similar to digoxin; the onset of toxicity occurs several hours after consumption.
The first symptoms of oleandrin poisoning may be gastrointestinal, such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea (which may contain blood), and loss of appetite.
After these first symptoms, the heart may be affected by tachyarrhythmia, bradyarrhythmia, premature ventricular contractions, or atrioventricular blockage. Xanthopsia (yellow vision), a burning sensation in the eyes, paralysis of the gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory symptoms may also occur.
Oleandrin poisoning may affect the central nervous system, as evidenced by drowsiness, tremors, seizures, collapse, and coma leading to death. When applied to the skin, oleander sap can cause skin irritations and allergic reactions characterized by dermatitis.
Diagnosis of oleandrin poisoning is mainly made on the basis of a description of the plant, how much of it was ingested, how much time has elapsed since ingestion, and symptoms. Confirmation of oleandrin in blood involves fluorescence polarization immunoassay, digoxin immunoassay, or liquid chromatography-electrospray tandem mass spectrometry.
Neither oleander nor oleandrin is approved by regulatory agencies as a prescription drug or dietary supplement.
In vitro study
Oleandrin for COVID-19 made headlines after President Trump met in the Oval Office with Andrew Whitney, vice chairman and director of Phoenix Biotechnology, along with Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, MD, and MyPillow founder/CEO Mike Lindell, a strong supporter of Trump and an investor in the biotech company, to learn about oleandrin, which Whitney called a “cure” for COVID-19, Axios reported.
In an in vitro study, researchers from Phoenix Biotechnology and the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, tested oleandrin against SARS-CoV-2 in cultured Vero cells.
“When administered both before and after virus infection, nanogram doses of oleandrin significantly inhibited replication by 45 to 3000-fold,” the researchers said in an article posted on bioRxiv, a free online archive and distribution service for unpublished preprints in the life sciences. The study has not been peer reviewed.
On the basis of these in vitro findings, the researchers said the plant extract has “potential to prevent disease and virus spread in persons recently exposed to SARS-CoV-2, as well as to prevent severe disease in persons at high risk.”
But it’s a far cry from test tube to human, one expert cautioned.
“This is an understatement: Care must be taken when inferring potential therapeutic benefits from in vitro antiviral effects,” Harlan Krumholz, MD, cardiologist and director, Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News.
“There is a chasm between a single in vitro study and any use in humans outside of a protocol. People should be cautioned about that distance and the need [to] avoid such remedies unless part of a credible research project,” said Krumholz.
Yet Lindell told Axios that, in the Oval Office meeting, Trump expressed enthusiasm for the Food and Drug Administration to allow oleandrin to be marketed as a dietary supplement or approved for COVID-19.
“This is really just nonsense and a distraction,” Jonathan Reiner, MD, of George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC, said on CNN.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pulmonary artery denervation eases PAH after endarterectomy
Pulmonary artery denervation (PADN) provides persistent and clinically significant hemodynamic improvements in patients with persistent chronic thromboembolic hypertension (CTEPH) after pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), according to a randomized, sham-controlled trial.
“PADN in patients with CTEPH after PEA was safe and effective,” according to an investigating team led by Alexander Romanov, MD, PhD.
The mean reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) was 258 dyn/sec per cm–5 for those randomized to PADN versus 149 dyn/sec per cm–5 (P = .001) for those randomized to the sham procedure, according to the newly published findings.
For the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), the mean distance was 470 m for the experimental group versus 399 m (P = .03) for the controls.
Several secondary endpoints measuring hemodynamics also favored PADN relative to the sham procedure at 12 months. This included the relative increase in tricuspid annular systolic excursion (P = .03) and the increase in the right ventricular fraction area (P < .001).
A total of 50 patients with residual CTEPH for at least 6 months after PEA despite medical therapy were enrolled and randomized. Entry criteria included a mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) of 25 mm Hg or greater or PVR greater than 400 dyn/sec per cm–5 on right heart catheterization. Patients with comorbidities associated with a life expectancy of less than 1 year were excluded.
Those randomized to the sham group were treated with riociguat over the course of follow-up. This therapy was not offered to patients in the PADN group, but all patients were blinded to the procedure and told that riociguat might or might not be administered.
Following the procedure, participating clinicians, who were also blinded to the procedure, were instructed to provide standard therapies for heart failure, such beta-blockers, diuretics, or digoxin, as needed. All patients were placed on an oral anticoagulant.
At 12 months the mean PAP (26 vs. 35 mm Hg; P < .001) and the mean systolic PAP (46 vs. 54 mm Hg; P = .01) were significantly lower in the PADN group versus those who underwent a sham procedure.
About 52% of the PADN group versus 12% of the sham group were classified as responders by the definition of a PVR reduction of at least 150 dyn/sec per cm–5 and 6MWT improvement of at least 20%, compared with baseline, reported Dr. Romanov, of the E. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, ministry of health, Novosibirsk, Russia, and coinvestigators.
Of the three deaths caused by heart failure over the course of follow-up, two occurred in the sham group. Of the eight hospitalizations for heart failure, seven (29% of the sham group) occurred among controls versus one in those treated with PADN (4% of this group; P = .049).
There was one groin hematoma at the puncture site in each group. Both resolved without any consequences prior to hospital discharge. There were no other significant procedure-related complications in either group.
Larger multicenter trials are needed to confirm these findings, according to both the trial investigators and Marius M. Hoeper, MD, who is charge of the pulmonary hypertension program at the Hannover (Germany) Medical School.
In an editorial that accompanied publication of these findings, Dr. Hoeper identified the small sample size of this study as one of its limitations, but he said the results are consistent with several other small studies associating pulmonary artery denervation with benefit in pulmonary hypertension.
“It appears as if we are currently witnessing the emergence of a new treatment option for various forms of pulmonary hypertension,” Dr. Hoeper wrote. In his critique of the study, he suggested that it would have been “more informative” if both groups were on background riociguat, but the data from this and other studies so far indicates that ablation to achieve denervation “is safe and feasible.”
The PADN technique used in this study might be relevant to the results. Dr. Hoeper noted that the investigators employed catheter tip–based electroanatomic mapping with a novel remote navigation system with three-dimensional imaging of the right ventricle and central pulmonary arteries.
“Apparently, this approach minimizes radiation exposure and provides precise location of ablation sites,” Dr. Hoeper observed. However, he called for direct comparisons of this tool to the guidance systems used in other studies.
In an interview, Dr. Hoeper acknowledged that it is not yet clear that a large-scale trial of pulmonary artery denervation for the indication evaluated in this study is coming. He noted several strategies in CTEPH are widely used without trials confirming a reduction in clinical events.
“Balloon pulmonary angioplasty for CTEPH has become an established treatment around the world without any randomized, controlled trial and without demonstration of improved outcomes. A couple of well-conducted observational trials might be sufficient to convince physicians to introduce PADN as well,” he said. If such studies associated PADN with “improvements in hemodynamics, exercise capacity, and patient-reported outcomes, it might be sufficient.”
Currently, Dr. Hoeper is most concerned about obtaining further evidence of safety, which he characterized as a “major issue.”
If a multicenter trial is conducted “the primary endpoint should be focused on clinical events,” according to Dr. Romanov, who was asked to comment on the next steps in validating PADN for the treatment of CTEPH-associated pulmonary hypertension persisting after endarterectomy.
“The mortality rate during 1-year long-term follow-up is not so high, but heart failure progression is a problem. So in my view, the primary endpoint should be a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization,” he said. He called for follow-up duration of 2-3 years.
Jonathan Steinberg, MD, director of cardiac clinical trials and education, Summit Medical Group, Montclair, N.J., also called a trial with hard endpoints, such as death, the ideal.
In the meantime, hemodynamic and functional measures “are still quite valuable and move the ball forward for this intervention,” he said in an interview. Senior author of this trial and principle investigator of the recent ERADICATE-AF trial, which evaluated renal denervation in preventing recurrence of atrial fibrillation (JAMA. 2020;323:248-55), Dr. Steinberg predicted, “I do indeed suspect we will see trials that are more accomplishable [than a large-scale, randomized, controlled trial] in the not too distant future.”
Dr. Romanov received funding from Biosense Webster. Dr. Hoeper has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer.
SOURCE: Romanov A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 17;76:916-26.
Pulmonary artery denervation (PADN) provides persistent and clinically significant hemodynamic improvements in patients with persistent chronic thromboembolic hypertension (CTEPH) after pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), according to a randomized, sham-controlled trial.
“PADN in patients with CTEPH after PEA was safe and effective,” according to an investigating team led by Alexander Romanov, MD, PhD.
The mean reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) was 258 dyn/sec per cm–5 for those randomized to PADN versus 149 dyn/sec per cm–5 (P = .001) for those randomized to the sham procedure, according to the newly published findings.
For the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), the mean distance was 470 m for the experimental group versus 399 m (P = .03) for the controls.
Several secondary endpoints measuring hemodynamics also favored PADN relative to the sham procedure at 12 months. This included the relative increase in tricuspid annular systolic excursion (P = .03) and the increase in the right ventricular fraction area (P < .001).
A total of 50 patients with residual CTEPH for at least 6 months after PEA despite medical therapy were enrolled and randomized. Entry criteria included a mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) of 25 mm Hg or greater or PVR greater than 400 dyn/sec per cm–5 on right heart catheterization. Patients with comorbidities associated with a life expectancy of less than 1 year were excluded.
Those randomized to the sham group were treated with riociguat over the course of follow-up. This therapy was not offered to patients in the PADN group, but all patients were blinded to the procedure and told that riociguat might or might not be administered.
Following the procedure, participating clinicians, who were also blinded to the procedure, were instructed to provide standard therapies for heart failure, such beta-blockers, diuretics, or digoxin, as needed. All patients were placed on an oral anticoagulant.
At 12 months the mean PAP (26 vs. 35 mm Hg; P < .001) and the mean systolic PAP (46 vs. 54 mm Hg; P = .01) were significantly lower in the PADN group versus those who underwent a sham procedure.
About 52% of the PADN group versus 12% of the sham group were classified as responders by the definition of a PVR reduction of at least 150 dyn/sec per cm–5 and 6MWT improvement of at least 20%, compared with baseline, reported Dr. Romanov, of the E. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, ministry of health, Novosibirsk, Russia, and coinvestigators.
Of the three deaths caused by heart failure over the course of follow-up, two occurred in the sham group. Of the eight hospitalizations for heart failure, seven (29% of the sham group) occurred among controls versus one in those treated with PADN (4% of this group; P = .049).
There was one groin hematoma at the puncture site in each group. Both resolved without any consequences prior to hospital discharge. There were no other significant procedure-related complications in either group.
Larger multicenter trials are needed to confirm these findings, according to both the trial investigators and Marius M. Hoeper, MD, who is charge of the pulmonary hypertension program at the Hannover (Germany) Medical School.
In an editorial that accompanied publication of these findings, Dr. Hoeper identified the small sample size of this study as one of its limitations, but he said the results are consistent with several other small studies associating pulmonary artery denervation with benefit in pulmonary hypertension.
“It appears as if we are currently witnessing the emergence of a new treatment option for various forms of pulmonary hypertension,” Dr. Hoeper wrote. In his critique of the study, he suggested that it would have been “more informative” if both groups were on background riociguat, but the data from this and other studies so far indicates that ablation to achieve denervation “is safe and feasible.”
The PADN technique used in this study might be relevant to the results. Dr. Hoeper noted that the investigators employed catheter tip–based electroanatomic mapping with a novel remote navigation system with three-dimensional imaging of the right ventricle and central pulmonary arteries.
“Apparently, this approach minimizes radiation exposure and provides precise location of ablation sites,” Dr. Hoeper observed. However, he called for direct comparisons of this tool to the guidance systems used in other studies.
In an interview, Dr. Hoeper acknowledged that it is not yet clear that a large-scale trial of pulmonary artery denervation for the indication evaluated in this study is coming. He noted several strategies in CTEPH are widely used without trials confirming a reduction in clinical events.
“Balloon pulmonary angioplasty for CTEPH has become an established treatment around the world without any randomized, controlled trial and without demonstration of improved outcomes. A couple of well-conducted observational trials might be sufficient to convince physicians to introduce PADN as well,” he said. If such studies associated PADN with “improvements in hemodynamics, exercise capacity, and patient-reported outcomes, it might be sufficient.”
Currently, Dr. Hoeper is most concerned about obtaining further evidence of safety, which he characterized as a “major issue.”
If a multicenter trial is conducted “the primary endpoint should be focused on clinical events,” according to Dr. Romanov, who was asked to comment on the next steps in validating PADN for the treatment of CTEPH-associated pulmonary hypertension persisting after endarterectomy.
“The mortality rate during 1-year long-term follow-up is not so high, but heart failure progression is a problem. So in my view, the primary endpoint should be a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization,” he said. He called for follow-up duration of 2-3 years.
Jonathan Steinberg, MD, director of cardiac clinical trials and education, Summit Medical Group, Montclair, N.J., also called a trial with hard endpoints, such as death, the ideal.
In the meantime, hemodynamic and functional measures “are still quite valuable and move the ball forward for this intervention,” he said in an interview. Senior author of this trial and principle investigator of the recent ERADICATE-AF trial, which evaluated renal denervation in preventing recurrence of atrial fibrillation (JAMA. 2020;323:248-55), Dr. Steinberg predicted, “I do indeed suspect we will see trials that are more accomplishable [than a large-scale, randomized, controlled trial] in the not too distant future.”
Dr. Romanov received funding from Biosense Webster. Dr. Hoeper has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer.
SOURCE: Romanov A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 17;76:916-26.
Pulmonary artery denervation (PADN) provides persistent and clinically significant hemodynamic improvements in patients with persistent chronic thromboembolic hypertension (CTEPH) after pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), according to a randomized, sham-controlled trial.
“PADN in patients with CTEPH after PEA was safe and effective,” according to an investigating team led by Alexander Romanov, MD, PhD.
The mean reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) was 258 dyn/sec per cm–5 for those randomized to PADN versus 149 dyn/sec per cm–5 (P = .001) for those randomized to the sham procedure, according to the newly published findings.
For the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), the mean distance was 470 m for the experimental group versus 399 m (P = .03) for the controls.
Several secondary endpoints measuring hemodynamics also favored PADN relative to the sham procedure at 12 months. This included the relative increase in tricuspid annular systolic excursion (P = .03) and the increase in the right ventricular fraction area (P < .001).
A total of 50 patients with residual CTEPH for at least 6 months after PEA despite medical therapy were enrolled and randomized. Entry criteria included a mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) of 25 mm Hg or greater or PVR greater than 400 dyn/sec per cm–5 on right heart catheterization. Patients with comorbidities associated with a life expectancy of less than 1 year were excluded.
Those randomized to the sham group were treated with riociguat over the course of follow-up. This therapy was not offered to patients in the PADN group, but all patients were blinded to the procedure and told that riociguat might or might not be administered.
Following the procedure, participating clinicians, who were also blinded to the procedure, were instructed to provide standard therapies for heart failure, such beta-blockers, diuretics, or digoxin, as needed. All patients were placed on an oral anticoagulant.
At 12 months the mean PAP (26 vs. 35 mm Hg; P < .001) and the mean systolic PAP (46 vs. 54 mm Hg; P = .01) were significantly lower in the PADN group versus those who underwent a sham procedure.
About 52% of the PADN group versus 12% of the sham group were classified as responders by the definition of a PVR reduction of at least 150 dyn/sec per cm–5 and 6MWT improvement of at least 20%, compared with baseline, reported Dr. Romanov, of the E. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, ministry of health, Novosibirsk, Russia, and coinvestigators.
Of the three deaths caused by heart failure over the course of follow-up, two occurred in the sham group. Of the eight hospitalizations for heart failure, seven (29% of the sham group) occurred among controls versus one in those treated with PADN (4% of this group; P = .049).
There was one groin hematoma at the puncture site in each group. Both resolved without any consequences prior to hospital discharge. There were no other significant procedure-related complications in either group.
Larger multicenter trials are needed to confirm these findings, according to both the trial investigators and Marius M. Hoeper, MD, who is charge of the pulmonary hypertension program at the Hannover (Germany) Medical School.
In an editorial that accompanied publication of these findings, Dr. Hoeper identified the small sample size of this study as one of its limitations, but he said the results are consistent with several other small studies associating pulmonary artery denervation with benefit in pulmonary hypertension.
“It appears as if we are currently witnessing the emergence of a new treatment option for various forms of pulmonary hypertension,” Dr. Hoeper wrote. In his critique of the study, he suggested that it would have been “more informative” if both groups were on background riociguat, but the data from this and other studies so far indicates that ablation to achieve denervation “is safe and feasible.”
The PADN technique used in this study might be relevant to the results. Dr. Hoeper noted that the investigators employed catheter tip–based electroanatomic mapping with a novel remote navigation system with three-dimensional imaging of the right ventricle and central pulmonary arteries.
“Apparently, this approach minimizes radiation exposure and provides precise location of ablation sites,” Dr. Hoeper observed. However, he called for direct comparisons of this tool to the guidance systems used in other studies.
In an interview, Dr. Hoeper acknowledged that it is not yet clear that a large-scale trial of pulmonary artery denervation for the indication evaluated in this study is coming. He noted several strategies in CTEPH are widely used without trials confirming a reduction in clinical events.
“Balloon pulmonary angioplasty for CTEPH has become an established treatment around the world without any randomized, controlled trial and without demonstration of improved outcomes. A couple of well-conducted observational trials might be sufficient to convince physicians to introduce PADN as well,” he said. If such studies associated PADN with “improvements in hemodynamics, exercise capacity, and patient-reported outcomes, it might be sufficient.”
Currently, Dr. Hoeper is most concerned about obtaining further evidence of safety, which he characterized as a “major issue.”
If a multicenter trial is conducted “the primary endpoint should be focused on clinical events,” according to Dr. Romanov, who was asked to comment on the next steps in validating PADN for the treatment of CTEPH-associated pulmonary hypertension persisting after endarterectomy.
“The mortality rate during 1-year long-term follow-up is not so high, but heart failure progression is a problem. So in my view, the primary endpoint should be a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization,” he said. He called for follow-up duration of 2-3 years.
Jonathan Steinberg, MD, director of cardiac clinical trials and education, Summit Medical Group, Montclair, N.J., also called a trial with hard endpoints, such as death, the ideal.
In the meantime, hemodynamic and functional measures “are still quite valuable and move the ball forward for this intervention,” he said in an interview. Senior author of this trial and principle investigator of the recent ERADICATE-AF trial, which evaluated renal denervation in preventing recurrence of atrial fibrillation (JAMA. 2020;323:248-55), Dr. Steinberg predicted, “I do indeed suspect we will see trials that are more accomplishable [than a large-scale, randomized, controlled trial] in the not too distant future.”
Dr. Romanov received funding from Biosense Webster. Dr. Hoeper has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer.
SOURCE: Romanov A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 17;76:916-26.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Machine learning shows ability to predict diastolic dysfunction with ECG
A machine-learning model that uses readily available clinical and electrocardiography data may have the potential to identify left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, a key biomarker in predicting heart failure, without echocardiography, but a workable clinical platform is still far off, a team of North American researchers reported.
“This cost-effective strategy may be a valuable first clinical step for assessing the presence of LV dysfunction and may potentially aid in the early diagnosis and management of heart failure patients,” Nobuyuki Kagiyama, MD, PhD, of West Virginia University, Morgantown, and colleagues, wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Cardiology.
The researchers reported on a multicenter, prospective study that evaluated 1,202 patients from three centers in the United States and one in Canada. To develop machine-learning models, the study pooled 814 patients from the U.S. institutions as an internal cohort. They were then randomly divided into a training set and an internal test set on an 80:20 basis (651 and 163). The 388 Canadian patients were reserved as an external set to test the model.
All patients had 12-lead ECG and simultaneous body surface signal-processed ECG (spECG) along with comprehensive two-dimensional Doppler ECG on the same day.
How the model works
The machine-learning model estimated echocardiographic LV relaxation velocities (e’) values using traditional ECG and spECG features. The model also took into account 10 basic clinical features: age; sex; systolic and diastolic blood pressure; and comorbid conditions such as cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease.
Patient characteristics were starkly different between the internal (United States) and external (Canadian) cohorts, with the latter being 10 years older on average (65 vs. 44; P < .001), predominantly male (58.2% vs. 47.3%; P < .001) and with significantly lower rates of coronary artery disease (1.8% vs. 21.1%; P < .001), although average blood pressure was similar between the two groups.
The study used area under the curve (AUC) to calculate the predictability of the machine-learning estimated e’ values versus the guideline-based reduced e’, finding close correlation between the internal (AUC, 0.83; sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 77%; negative predictive value, 73%; and positive predictive value, 82%) and external test sets (AUC, 0.84; sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 61%; NPV, 81%; and PPV, 77%).
Similar variations between the two cohorts were reported for global LV diastolic dysfunction and reduced LV ejection fraction.
The final model used 18 features in all, including 3 clinical features (age, dyslipidemia, and hypertension), 7 scores from spECG features, and 8 from traditional ECG features.
Interpreting the results
Dr. Kagiyama and colleagues noted that, because impaired myocardial relaxation is an early sign of cardiac tissue deterioration, screening for it can aid in early detection of subclinical LVDD and earlier treatment for hypertension and diabetes. But they acknowledged that further studies are needed.
In an invited editorial, Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH, MSc, of Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Rohan Khera, MD, MS, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote that the machine-learning model has a way to go.
They noted that the 73%-77% accuracy of the model in identifying diastolic dysfunction impedes its imminent use. “Although we are excited about the prospects of such developments, we hold out for better evidence for their actual use,” they wrote, adding that the algorithms have limited use in the clinic because most patients already get “definitive testing” if they need it.
Developing a machine-learning model that obviates the need for ECG for evaluating LV diastolic dysfunction seems dubious at this time, said Luigi Di Biase, MD, PhD, section head of electrophysiology and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York. “The echo is not a difficult test. It’s the most proven usable tool that we have in cardiology because it’s easy to reproduce, low cost, and noninvasive – so we have all that we want in medicine.”
But machine learning does have potential, added Dr. Di Biase, who’s also a member of the American College of Cardiology’s Electrophysiology Section Leadership Council. “If this application could predict the people that would develop diastolic dysfunction that leads to heart failure – because an echo at that time may be negative but there may be other features that tell me this patient will develop disease – then it would have a much different clinical impact.”
The National Science Foundation provided funding for the study. Heart Test Laboratories, doing business as Heart Sciences, provided funding and spECG devices. Dr. Kagiyama reported receiving a research grant from Hitachi Healthcare. A coauthor disclosed financial relationships with Heart Sciences, Ultronics, and Kencor Health.
Dr. Nasir, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Di Biase have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Kagiyama N et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:930-41.
A machine-learning model that uses readily available clinical and electrocardiography data may have the potential to identify left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, a key biomarker in predicting heart failure, without echocardiography, but a workable clinical platform is still far off, a team of North American researchers reported.
“This cost-effective strategy may be a valuable first clinical step for assessing the presence of LV dysfunction and may potentially aid in the early diagnosis and management of heart failure patients,” Nobuyuki Kagiyama, MD, PhD, of West Virginia University, Morgantown, and colleagues, wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Cardiology.
The researchers reported on a multicenter, prospective study that evaluated 1,202 patients from three centers in the United States and one in Canada. To develop machine-learning models, the study pooled 814 patients from the U.S. institutions as an internal cohort. They were then randomly divided into a training set and an internal test set on an 80:20 basis (651 and 163). The 388 Canadian patients were reserved as an external set to test the model.
All patients had 12-lead ECG and simultaneous body surface signal-processed ECG (spECG) along with comprehensive two-dimensional Doppler ECG on the same day.
How the model works
The machine-learning model estimated echocardiographic LV relaxation velocities (e’) values using traditional ECG and spECG features. The model also took into account 10 basic clinical features: age; sex; systolic and diastolic blood pressure; and comorbid conditions such as cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease.
Patient characteristics were starkly different between the internal (United States) and external (Canadian) cohorts, with the latter being 10 years older on average (65 vs. 44; P < .001), predominantly male (58.2% vs. 47.3%; P < .001) and with significantly lower rates of coronary artery disease (1.8% vs. 21.1%; P < .001), although average blood pressure was similar between the two groups.
The study used area under the curve (AUC) to calculate the predictability of the machine-learning estimated e’ values versus the guideline-based reduced e’, finding close correlation between the internal (AUC, 0.83; sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 77%; negative predictive value, 73%; and positive predictive value, 82%) and external test sets (AUC, 0.84; sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 61%; NPV, 81%; and PPV, 77%).
Similar variations between the two cohorts were reported for global LV diastolic dysfunction and reduced LV ejection fraction.
The final model used 18 features in all, including 3 clinical features (age, dyslipidemia, and hypertension), 7 scores from spECG features, and 8 from traditional ECG features.
Interpreting the results
Dr. Kagiyama and colleagues noted that, because impaired myocardial relaxation is an early sign of cardiac tissue deterioration, screening for it can aid in early detection of subclinical LVDD and earlier treatment for hypertension and diabetes. But they acknowledged that further studies are needed.
In an invited editorial, Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH, MSc, of Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Rohan Khera, MD, MS, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote that the machine-learning model has a way to go.
They noted that the 73%-77% accuracy of the model in identifying diastolic dysfunction impedes its imminent use. “Although we are excited about the prospects of such developments, we hold out for better evidence for their actual use,” they wrote, adding that the algorithms have limited use in the clinic because most patients already get “definitive testing” if they need it.
Developing a machine-learning model that obviates the need for ECG for evaluating LV diastolic dysfunction seems dubious at this time, said Luigi Di Biase, MD, PhD, section head of electrophysiology and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York. “The echo is not a difficult test. It’s the most proven usable tool that we have in cardiology because it’s easy to reproduce, low cost, and noninvasive – so we have all that we want in medicine.”
But machine learning does have potential, added Dr. Di Biase, who’s also a member of the American College of Cardiology’s Electrophysiology Section Leadership Council. “If this application could predict the people that would develop diastolic dysfunction that leads to heart failure – because an echo at that time may be negative but there may be other features that tell me this patient will develop disease – then it would have a much different clinical impact.”
The National Science Foundation provided funding for the study. Heart Test Laboratories, doing business as Heart Sciences, provided funding and spECG devices. Dr. Kagiyama reported receiving a research grant from Hitachi Healthcare. A coauthor disclosed financial relationships with Heart Sciences, Ultronics, and Kencor Health.
Dr. Nasir, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Di Biase have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Kagiyama N et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:930-41.
A machine-learning model that uses readily available clinical and electrocardiography data may have the potential to identify left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, a key biomarker in predicting heart failure, without echocardiography, but a workable clinical platform is still far off, a team of North American researchers reported.
“This cost-effective strategy may be a valuable first clinical step for assessing the presence of LV dysfunction and may potentially aid in the early diagnosis and management of heart failure patients,” Nobuyuki Kagiyama, MD, PhD, of West Virginia University, Morgantown, and colleagues, wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Cardiology.
The researchers reported on a multicenter, prospective study that evaluated 1,202 patients from three centers in the United States and one in Canada. To develop machine-learning models, the study pooled 814 patients from the U.S. institutions as an internal cohort. They were then randomly divided into a training set and an internal test set on an 80:20 basis (651 and 163). The 388 Canadian patients were reserved as an external set to test the model.
All patients had 12-lead ECG and simultaneous body surface signal-processed ECG (spECG) along with comprehensive two-dimensional Doppler ECG on the same day.
How the model works
The machine-learning model estimated echocardiographic LV relaxation velocities (e’) values using traditional ECG and spECG features. The model also took into account 10 basic clinical features: age; sex; systolic and diastolic blood pressure; and comorbid conditions such as cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease.
Patient characteristics were starkly different between the internal (United States) and external (Canadian) cohorts, with the latter being 10 years older on average (65 vs. 44; P < .001), predominantly male (58.2% vs. 47.3%; P < .001) and with significantly lower rates of coronary artery disease (1.8% vs. 21.1%; P < .001), although average blood pressure was similar between the two groups.
The study used area under the curve (AUC) to calculate the predictability of the machine-learning estimated e’ values versus the guideline-based reduced e’, finding close correlation between the internal (AUC, 0.83; sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 77%; negative predictive value, 73%; and positive predictive value, 82%) and external test sets (AUC, 0.84; sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 61%; NPV, 81%; and PPV, 77%).
Similar variations between the two cohorts were reported for global LV diastolic dysfunction and reduced LV ejection fraction.
The final model used 18 features in all, including 3 clinical features (age, dyslipidemia, and hypertension), 7 scores from spECG features, and 8 from traditional ECG features.
Interpreting the results
Dr. Kagiyama and colleagues noted that, because impaired myocardial relaxation is an early sign of cardiac tissue deterioration, screening for it can aid in early detection of subclinical LVDD and earlier treatment for hypertension and diabetes. But they acknowledged that further studies are needed.
In an invited editorial, Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH, MSc, of Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Rohan Khera, MD, MS, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote that the machine-learning model has a way to go.
They noted that the 73%-77% accuracy of the model in identifying diastolic dysfunction impedes its imminent use. “Although we are excited about the prospects of such developments, we hold out for better evidence for their actual use,” they wrote, adding that the algorithms have limited use in the clinic because most patients already get “definitive testing” if they need it.
Developing a machine-learning model that obviates the need for ECG for evaluating LV diastolic dysfunction seems dubious at this time, said Luigi Di Biase, MD, PhD, section head of electrophysiology and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York. “The echo is not a difficult test. It’s the most proven usable tool that we have in cardiology because it’s easy to reproduce, low cost, and noninvasive – so we have all that we want in medicine.”
But machine learning does have potential, added Dr. Di Biase, who’s also a member of the American College of Cardiology’s Electrophysiology Section Leadership Council. “If this application could predict the people that would develop diastolic dysfunction that leads to heart failure – because an echo at that time may be negative but there may be other features that tell me this patient will develop disease – then it would have a much different clinical impact.”
The National Science Foundation provided funding for the study. Heart Test Laboratories, doing business as Heart Sciences, provided funding and spECG devices. Dr. Kagiyama reported receiving a research grant from Hitachi Healthcare. A coauthor disclosed financial relationships with Heart Sciences, Ultronics, and Kencor Health.
Dr. Nasir, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Di Biase have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Kagiyama N et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:930-41.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
PHM20 Virtual: Can’t miss heart disease for hospitalists
PHM20 Virtual session title
Can’t Miss Heart Disease for Hospitalists
Presenter
Erich Maul, DO, MPH, FAAP, SFHM
Session summary
Dr. Erich Maul, professor of pediatrics, medical director for progressive care and acute care, and chief of hospital pediatrics at Kentucky Children’s Hospital, Lexington, presented an engaging, case-based approach to evaluate heart disease when “on call.” He iterated the importance of recognizing congenital heart disease, especially since 25% of these patients usually need surgical intervention within the first month of diagnosis and about 50% of congenital heart disease patients do not have a murmur.
Presenting cases seen during a busy hospitalist call night, Dr. Maul highlighted that patients can present with signs of heart failure, cyanosis, sepsis or hypoperfusion, failure to thrive, and respiratory distress or failure. He discussed the presentation, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. He also provided examples of common arrhythmias and provided refreshers on management using basic life support (BLS) and pediatric advanced life support.
Key takeaways
- Always start with the nine steps to resuscitation: ABC (airway, breathing, circulation), ABC, oxygen, access, monitoring.
- Early BLS is important.
- Congenital heart disease often presents with either cyanosis, hypoperfusion, failure to thrive, or respiratory distress.
Dr. Tantoco is an academic med-peds hospitalist practicing at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. She is an instructor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago.
PHM20 Virtual session title
Can’t Miss Heart Disease for Hospitalists
Presenter
Erich Maul, DO, MPH, FAAP, SFHM
Session summary
Dr. Erich Maul, professor of pediatrics, medical director for progressive care and acute care, and chief of hospital pediatrics at Kentucky Children’s Hospital, Lexington, presented an engaging, case-based approach to evaluate heart disease when “on call.” He iterated the importance of recognizing congenital heart disease, especially since 25% of these patients usually need surgical intervention within the first month of diagnosis and about 50% of congenital heart disease patients do not have a murmur.
Presenting cases seen during a busy hospitalist call night, Dr. Maul highlighted that patients can present with signs of heart failure, cyanosis, sepsis or hypoperfusion, failure to thrive, and respiratory distress or failure. He discussed the presentation, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. He also provided examples of common arrhythmias and provided refreshers on management using basic life support (BLS) and pediatric advanced life support.
Key takeaways
- Always start with the nine steps to resuscitation: ABC (airway, breathing, circulation), ABC, oxygen, access, monitoring.
- Early BLS is important.
- Congenital heart disease often presents with either cyanosis, hypoperfusion, failure to thrive, or respiratory distress.
Dr. Tantoco is an academic med-peds hospitalist practicing at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. She is an instructor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago.
PHM20 Virtual session title
Can’t Miss Heart Disease for Hospitalists
Presenter
Erich Maul, DO, MPH, FAAP, SFHM
Session summary
Dr. Erich Maul, professor of pediatrics, medical director for progressive care and acute care, and chief of hospital pediatrics at Kentucky Children’s Hospital, Lexington, presented an engaging, case-based approach to evaluate heart disease when “on call.” He iterated the importance of recognizing congenital heart disease, especially since 25% of these patients usually need surgical intervention within the first month of diagnosis and about 50% of congenital heart disease patients do not have a murmur.
Presenting cases seen during a busy hospitalist call night, Dr. Maul highlighted that patients can present with signs of heart failure, cyanosis, sepsis or hypoperfusion, failure to thrive, and respiratory distress or failure. He discussed the presentation, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. He also provided examples of common arrhythmias and provided refreshers on management using basic life support (BLS) and pediatric advanced life support.
Key takeaways
- Always start with the nine steps to resuscitation: ABC (airway, breathing, circulation), ABC, oxygen, access, monitoring.
- Early BLS is important.
- Congenital heart disease often presents with either cyanosis, hypoperfusion, failure to thrive, or respiratory distress.
Dr. Tantoco is an academic med-peds hospitalist practicing at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. She is an instructor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Non-COVID-19 clinical trials grind to a halt during pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has created unique and unprecedented challenges for the clinical research world, with potentially long-lasting consequences.
A new analysis of the extent of disruption shows that the average rate of stopped trials nearly doubled during the first 5 months of 2020, compared with the 2 previous years.
“Typically, clinical research precedes clinical practice by several years, so this disruption we’re seeing now will be felt for many years to come,” said Mario Guadino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
The analysis was published online July 31 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The researchers used Python software to query meta-data from all trials reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 321,218 non-COVID-19 trials queried, 28,672 (8.9%) were reported as stopped, defined as a switch in trial status from “recruiting” to “active and not recruiting,” “completed,” “suspended,” “terminated,” or “withdrawn.”
The average rate of discontinuation was 638 trials/month from January 2017 to December 2019, rising to 1,147 trials/month between January 2020 and May 2020 (P < .001 for trend).
Once stopped (as opposed to paused), restarting a trial is a tricky prospect, said Dr. Guadino. “You can’t stop and restart a trial because it creates a lot of issues, so we should expect many of these stopped trials to never be completed.”
He said these figures likely represent an underestimate of the true impact of the pandemic because there is typically a delay in the updating of the status of a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.
“We are likely looking only at the tip of the iceberg,” he added. “My impression is that the number of trials that will be affected and even canceled will be very high.”
As for cardiology trials, one of the report’s authors, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, without naming specific trials, had this to say: “Several cardiovascular trials were paused, and some were permanently discontinued. It may be a while before we fully appreciate just how much information was lost and how much might be salvaged.”
He’s not worried, however, that upcoming cardiology meetings, which have moved online for the foreseeable future, might get a bit boring. “Fortunately, there is enough good work going on in the cardiovascular and cardiometabolic space that I believe there will still be ample randomized and observational data of high quality to present at the major meetings,” Dr. Bhatt said in an email.
The researchers found a weak correlation between the national population-adjusted numbers of COVID-19 cases and the proportion of non-COVID-19 trials stopped by country.
Even for trials that stopped recruiting for a period of time but are continuing, there are myriad issues involving compliance, data integrity, statistical interpretability, etc.
“Even if there is just a temporary disruption, that will most likely lead to reduced enrollment, missing follow-up visits, and protocol deviations, all things that would be red flags during normal times and impact the quality of the clinical trial,” said Dr. Guadino.
“And if your outcome of interest is mortality, well, how exactly do you measure that during a pandemic?” he added.
Stopped for lack of funding
Besides the logistical issues, another reason trials may be in jeopardy is funding. A warning early in the pandemic from the research community in Canada that funding was quickly drying up, leaving both jobs and data at risk, led to an aid package from the government to keep the lights on.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and similar groups “have devoted large sums of money to research in COVID, which is of course very appropriate, but that clearly reduces the amount of funding that is available for other researchers,” said Dr. Guadino.
Some funding agencies around the world have canceled or put on hold all non-COVID-19 clinical trials still at the design state, Dr. Guadino said in an interview.
The NIH, he stressed, has not canceled funding and has been “extremely open and cooperative” in trying to help trialists navigate the many COVID-generated issues. They’ve even issued guidance on how to manage trials during COVID-19.
Of note, in the survey, the majority of the trials stopped (95.4%) had nongovernmental funding.
“The data are not very granular, so we’re only able to make some very simple, descriptive comments, but it does seem like the more fragile trials – those that are smaller and industry-funded – are the ones more likely to be disrupted,” said Dr. Guadino.
In some cases, he said, priorities have shifted to COVID-19. “If a small company is sponsoring a trial and they decide they want to sponsor something related to COVID, or they realize that because of the slow enrollment, the trial becomes too expensive to complete, they may opt to just abandon it,” said Dr. Guadino.
At what cost? It will take years to sort that out, he said.
This study received no funding. Dr. Guadino and Dr. Bhatt are both active trialists, participating in both industry- and government-sponsored clinical research.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The COVID-19 pandemic has created unique and unprecedented challenges for the clinical research world, with potentially long-lasting consequences.
A new analysis of the extent of disruption shows that the average rate of stopped trials nearly doubled during the first 5 months of 2020, compared with the 2 previous years.
“Typically, clinical research precedes clinical practice by several years, so this disruption we’re seeing now will be felt for many years to come,” said Mario Guadino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
The analysis was published online July 31 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The researchers used Python software to query meta-data from all trials reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 321,218 non-COVID-19 trials queried, 28,672 (8.9%) were reported as stopped, defined as a switch in trial status from “recruiting” to “active and not recruiting,” “completed,” “suspended,” “terminated,” or “withdrawn.”
The average rate of discontinuation was 638 trials/month from January 2017 to December 2019, rising to 1,147 trials/month between January 2020 and May 2020 (P < .001 for trend).
Once stopped (as opposed to paused), restarting a trial is a tricky prospect, said Dr. Guadino. “You can’t stop and restart a trial because it creates a lot of issues, so we should expect many of these stopped trials to never be completed.”
He said these figures likely represent an underestimate of the true impact of the pandemic because there is typically a delay in the updating of the status of a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.
“We are likely looking only at the tip of the iceberg,” he added. “My impression is that the number of trials that will be affected and even canceled will be very high.”
As for cardiology trials, one of the report’s authors, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, without naming specific trials, had this to say: “Several cardiovascular trials were paused, and some were permanently discontinued. It may be a while before we fully appreciate just how much information was lost and how much might be salvaged.”
He’s not worried, however, that upcoming cardiology meetings, which have moved online for the foreseeable future, might get a bit boring. “Fortunately, there is enough good work going on in the cardiovascular and cardiometabolic space that I believe there will still be ample randomized and observational data of high quality to present at the major meetings,” Dr. Bhatt said in an email.
The researchers found a weak correlation between the national population-adjusted numbers of COVID-19 cases and the proportion of non-COVID-19 trials stopped by country.
Even for trials that stopped recruiting for a period of time but are continuing, there are myriad issues involving compliance, data integrity, statistical interpretability, etc.
“Even if there is just a temporary disruption, that will most likely lead to reduced enrollment, missing follow-up visits, and protocol deviations, all things that would be red flags during normal times and impact the quality of the clinical trial,” said Dr. Guadino.
“And if your outcome of interest is mortality, well, how exactly do you measure that during a pandemic?” he added.
Stopped for lack of funding
Besides the logistical issues, another reason trials may be in jeopardy is funding. A warning early in the pandemic from the research community in Canada that funding was quickly drying up, leaving both jobs and data at risk, led to an aid package from the government to keep the lights on.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and similar groups “have devoted large sums of money to research in COVID, which is of course very appropriate, but that clearly reduces the amount of funding that is available for other researchers,” said Dr. Guadino.
Some funding agencies around the world have canceled or put on hold all non-COVID-19 clinical trials still at the design state, Dr. Guadino said in an interview.
The NIH, he stressed, has not canceled funding and has been “extremely open and cooperative” in trying to help trialists navigate the many COVID-generated issues. They’ve even issued guidance on how to manage trials during COVID-19.
Of note, in the survey, the majority of the trials stopped (95.4%) had nongovernmental funding.
“The data are not very granular, so we’re only able to make some very simple, descriptive comments, but it does seem like the more fragile trials – those that are smaller and industry-funded – are the ones more likely to be disrupted,” said Dr. Guadino.
In some cases, he said, priorities have shifted to COVID-19. “If a small company is sponsoring a trial and they decide they want to sponsor something related to COVID, or they realize that because of the slow enrollment, the trial becomes too expensive to complete, they may opt to just abandon it,” said Dr. Guadino.
At what cost? It will take years to sort that out, he said.
This study received no funding. Dr. Guadino and Dr. Bhatt are both active trialists, participating in both industry- and government-sponsored clinical research.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The COVID-19 pandemic has created unique and unprecedented challenges for the clinical research world, with potentially long-lasting consequences.
A new analysis of the extent of disruption shows that the average rate of stopped trials nearly doubled during the first 5 months of 2020, compared with the 2 previous years.
“Typically, clinical research precedes clinical practice by several years, so this disruption we’re seeing now will be felt for many years to come,” said Mario Guadino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
The analysis was published online July 31 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The researchers used Python software to query meta-data from all trials reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 321,218 non-COVID-19 trials queried, 28,672 (8.9%) were reported as stopped, defined as a switch in trial status from “recruiting” to “active and not recruiting,” “completed,” “suspended,” “terminated,” or “withdrawn.”
The average rate of discontinuation was 638 trials/month from January 2017 to December 2019, rising to 1,147 trials/month between January 2020 and May 2020 (P < .001 for trend).
Once stopped (as opposed to paused), restarting a trial is a tricky prospect, said Dr. Guadino. “You can’t stop and restart a trial because it creates a lot of issues, so we should expect many of these stopped trials to never be completed.”
He said these figures likely represent an underestimate of the true impact of the pandemic because there is typically a delay in the updating of the status of a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.
“We are likely looking only at the tip of the iceberg,” he added. “My impression is that the number of trials that will be affected and even canceled will be very high.”
As for cardiology trials, one of the report’s authors, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, without naming specific trials, had this to say: “Several cardiovascular trials were paused, and some were permanently discontinued. It may be a while before we fully appreciate just how much information was lost and how much might be salvaged.”
He’s not worried, however, that upcoming cardiology meetings, which have moved online for the foreseeable future, might get a bit boring. “Fortunately, there is enough good work going on in the cardiovascular and cardiometabolic space that I believe there will still be ample randomized and observational data of high quality to present at the major meetings,” Dr. Bhatt said in an email.
The researchers found a weak correlation between the national population-adjusted numbers of COVID-19 cases and the proportion of non-COVID-19 trials stopped by country.
Even for trials that stopped recruiting for a period of time but are continuing, there are myriad issues involving compliance, data integrity, statistical interpretability, etc.
“Even if there is just a temporary disruption, that will most likely lead to reduced enrollment, missing follow-up visits, and protocol deviations, all things that would be red flags during normal times and impact the quality of the clinical trial,” said Dr. Guadino.
“And if your outcome of interest is mortality, well, how exactly do you measure that during a pandemic?” he added.
Stopped for lack of funding
Besides the logistical issues, another reason trials may be in jeopardy is funding. A warning early in the pandemic from the research community in Canada that funding was quickly drying up, leaving both jobs and data at risk, led to an aid package from the government to keep the lights on.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and similar groups “have devoted large sums of money to research in COVID, which is of course very appropriate, but that clearly reduces the amount of funding that is available for other researchers,” said Dr. Guadino.
Some funding agencies around the world have canceled or put on hold all non-COVID-19 clinical trials still at the design state, Dr. Guadino said in an interview.
The NIH, he stressed, has not canceled funding and has been “extremely open and cooperative” in trying to help trialists navigate the many COVID-generated issues. They’ve even issued guidance on how to manage trials during COVID-19.
Of note, in the survey, the majority of the trials stopped (95.4%) had nongovernmental funding.
“The data are not very granular, so we’re only able to make some very simple, descriptive comments, but it does seem like the more fragile trials – those that are smaller and industry-funded – are the ones more likely to be disrupted,” said Dr. Guadino.
In some cases, he said, priorities have shifted to COVID-19. “If a small company is sponsoring a trial and they decide they want to sponsor something related to COVID, or they realize that because of the slow enrollment, the trial becomes too expensive to complete, they may opt to just abandon it,” said Dr. Guadino.
At what cost? It will take years to sort that out, he said.
This study received no funding. Dr. Guadino and Dr. Bhatt are both active trialists, participating in both industry- and government-sponsored clinical research.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Severe obesity ups risk for death in younger men with COVID-19
In a large California health care plan, among patients with COVID-19, men aged 60 years and younger had a much higher risk of dying within 3 weeks of diagnosis if they had severe obesity as opposed to being of normal weight, independently of other risk factors.
reported Sara Y. Tartof, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif., and coauthors.
The data “highlight the leading role of severe obesity over correlated risk factors, providing a target for early intervention,” they concluded in an article published online Aug. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
This work adds to nearly 300 articles that have shown that severe obesity is associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.
In an accompanying editorial, David A. Kass, MD, said: “Consistency of this new study and prior research should put to rest the contention that obesity is common in severe COVID-19 because it is common in the population.”
Rather, these findings show that “obesity is an important independent risk factor for serious COVID-19 disease,” he pointed out.
On the basis of this evidence, “arguably the hardest question to answer is: What is to be done?” wondered Kass, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Although data consistently show that a body mass index >35 kg/m2 is predictive of major health risks, “weight reduction at that level of obesity is difficult and certainly is not achieved rapidly,” Dr. Kass stressed.
“Therefore ... social distancing; altering behaviors to reduce viral exposure and transmission, such as wearing masks; and instituting policies and health care approaches that recognize the potential effects of obesity should be implemented,” he emphasized. “These actions should help and are certainly doable.”
Similarly, Dr. Tartof and colleagues said their “findings also reveal the distressing collision of two pandemics: COVID-19 and obesity.
“As COVID-19 continues to spread unabated, we must focus our immediate efforts on containing the crisis at hand,” they urged.
However, the findings also “underscore the need for future collective efforts to combat the equally devastating, and potentially synergistic, force of the obesity epidemic.”
COVID-19 pandemic collides with obesity epidemic
Previous studies of obesity and COVID-19 were small, did not adjust for multiple confounders, or did not include nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Tartof and coauthors wrote.
Their study included 6,916 members of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care plan who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 13 to May 2, 2020.
The researchers calculated the risk for death at 21 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis; findings were corrected for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, renal disease, metastatic tumor or malignancy, other immune disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, asthma, organ transplant, and diabetes status.
On the basis of BMI, the patients were classified as being underweight, of normal weight, overweight, or as having class 1, 2, or 3 obesity. BMI of 18.5 to 24 kg/m2 is defined as normal weight.
Class 3 obesity, also called severe obesity, included moderately severe obesity (BMI, 40-44 kg/m2) and extremely severe obesity (≥45 kg/m2).
A little more than half of the patients were women (55%), and more than 50% were Hispanic (54%).
A total of 206 patients (3%) died within 21 days of being diagnosed with COVID-19; of these, 67% had been hospitalized, and 43% had been intubated.
Overall, the COVID-19 patients with moderately severe or extremely severe obesity had a 2.7-fold and 4.2-fold increased risk for death, respectively, within 3 weeks compared with patients of normal weight.
Patients in the other BMI categories did not have a significantly higher risk of dying during follow-up.
However, each decade of increasing age after age 40 was associated with a stepwise increased risk for death within 3 weeks of the COVID-19 diagnosis.
Risk stratified by age and sex
Further analysis showed that, “most strikingly,” among patients aged 60 and younger, those with moderately severe obesity and extremely severe obesity had significant 17-fold and 12-fold higher risks of dying during follow-up, respectively, compared with patients of normal weight, the researchers reported.
In patients older than 60, moderately severe obesity did not confer a significant increased risk for imminent death from COVID-19; extremely severe obesity conferred a smaller, threefold increased risk for this.
“Our finding that severe obesity, particularly among younger patients, eclipses the mortality risk posed by other obesity-related conditions, such as history of myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, suggests a significant pathophysiologic link between excess adiposity and severe COVID-19 illness,” the researchers noted.
This independent increased risk for death with severe obesity was seen in men but not in women.
Men with moderately severe and extremely severe obesity had significant 4.8-fold and 10-fold higher risks of dying within 3 weeks, respectively, compared with men of normal weight.
“That the risks are higher in younger patients is probably not because obesity is particularly damaging in this age group; it is more likely that other serious comorbidities that evolve later in life take over as dominant risk factors,” Dr. Kass suggested in his editorial.
“That males are particularly affected may reflect their greater visceral adiposity over females, given that this fat is notably proinflammatory and contributes to metabolic and vascular disease,” he added.
“As a cardiologist who studies heart failure,” Dr. Kass wrote, “I am struck by how many of the mechanisms that are mentioned in reviews of obesity risk and heart disease are also mentioned in reviews of obesity and COVID-19.”
The study was funded by Roche-Genentech. Kass has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures of the authors are listed in the article.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large California health care plan, among patients with COVID-19, men aged 60 years and younger had a much higher risk of dying within 3 weeks of diagnosis if they had severe obesity as opposed to being of normal weight, independently of other risk factors.
reported Sara Y. Tartof, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif., and coauthors.
The data “highlight the leading role of severe obesity over correlated risk factors, providing a target for early intervention,” they concluded in an article published online Aug. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
This work adds to nearly 300 articles that have shown that severe obesity is associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.
In an accompanying editorial, David A. Kass, MD, said: “Consistency of this new study and prior research should put to rest the contention that obesity is common in severe COVID-19 because it is common in the population.”
Rather, these findings show that “obesity is an important independent risk factor for serious COVID-19 disease,” he pointed out.
On the basis of this evidence, “arguably the hardest question to answer is: What is to be done?” wondered Kass, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Although data consistently show that a body mass index >35 kg/m2 is predictive of major health risks, “weight reduction at that level of obesity is difficult and certainly is not achieved rapidly,” Dr. Kass stressed.
“Therefore ... social distancing; altering behaviors to reduce viral exposure and transmission, such as wearing masks; and instituting policies and health care approaches that recognize the potential effects of obesity should be implemented,” he emphasized. “These actions should help and are certainly doable.”
Similarly, Dr. Tartof and colleagues said their “findings also reveal the distressing collision of two pandemics: COVID-19 and obesity.
“As COVID-19 continues to spread unabated, we must focus our immediate efforts on containing the crisis at hand,” they urged.
However, the findings also “underscore the need for future collective efforts to combat the equally devastating, and potentially synergistic, force of the obesity epidemic.”
COVID-19 pandemic collides with obesity epidemic
Previous studies of obesity and COVID-19 were small, did not adjust for multiple confounders, or did not include nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Tartof and coauthors wrote.
Their study included 6,916 members of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care plan who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 13 to May 2, 2020.
The researchers calculated the risk for death at 21 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis; findings were corrected for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, renal disease, metastatic tumor or malignancy, other immune disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, asthma, organ transplant, and diabetes status.
On the basis of BMI, the patients were classified as being underweight, of normal weight, overweight, or as having class 1, 2, or 3 obesity. BMI of 18.5 to 24 kg/m2 is defined as normal weight.
Class 3 obesity, also called severe obesity, included moderately severe obesity (BMI, 40-44 kg/m2) and extremely severe obesity (≥45 kg/m2).
A little more than half of the patients were women (55%), and more than 50% were Hispanic (54%).
A total of 206 patients (3%) died within 21 days of being diagnosed with COVID-19; of these, 67% had been hospitalized, and 43% had been intubated.
Overall, the COVID-19 patients with moderately severe or extremely severe obesity had a 2.7-fold and 4.2-fold increased risk for death, respectively, within 3 weeks compared with patients of normal weight.
Patients in the other BMI categories did not have a significantly higher risk of dying during follow-up.
However, each decade of increasing age after age 40 was associated with a stepwise increased risk for death within 3 weeks of the COVID-19 diagnosis.
Risk stratified by age and sex
Further analysis showed that, “most strikingly,” among patients aged 60 and younger, those with moderately severe obesity and extremely severe obesity had significant 17-fold and 12-fold higher risks of dying during follow-up, respectively, compared with patients of normal weight, the researchers reported.
In patients older than 60, moderately severe obesity did not confer a significant increased risk for imminent death from COVID-19; extremely severe obesity conferred a smaller, threefold increased risk for this.
“Our finding that severe obesity, particularly among younger patients, eclipses the mortality risk posed by other obesity-related conditions, such as history of myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, suggests a significant pathophysiologic link between excess adiposity and severe COVID-19 illness,” the researchers noted.
This independent increased risk for death with severe obesity was seen in men but not in women.
Men with moderately severe and extremely severe obesity had significant 4.8-fold and 10-fold higher risks of dying within 3 weeks, respectively, compared with men of normal weight.
“That the risks are higher in younger patients is probably not because obesity is particularly damaging in this age group; it is more likely that other serious comorbidities that evolve later in life take over as dominant risk factors,” Dr. Kass suggested in his editorial.
“That males are particularly affected may reflect their greater visceral adiposity over females, given that this fat is notably proinflammatory and contributes to metabolic and vascular disease,” he added.
“As a cardiologist who studies heart failure,” Dr. Kass wrote, “I am struck by how many of the mechanisms that are mentioned in reviews of obesity risk and heart disease are also mentioned in reviews of obesity and COVID-19.”
The study was funded by Roche-Genentech. Kass has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures of the authors are listed in the article.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large California health care plan, among patients with COVID-19, men aged 60 years and younger had a much higher risk of dying within 3 weeks of diagnosis if they had severe obesity as opposed to being of normal weight, independently of other risk factors.
reported Sara Y. Tartof, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif., and coauthors.
The data “highlight the leading role of severe obesity over correlated risk factors, providing a target for early intervention,” they concluded in an article published online Aug. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
This work adds to nearly 300 articles that have shown that severe obesity is associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.
In an accompanying editorial, David A. Kass, MD, said: “Consistency of this new study and prior research should put to rest the contention that obesity is common in severe COVID-19 because it is common in the population.”
Rather, these findings show that “obesity is an important independent risk factor for serious COVID-19 disease,” he pointed out.
On the basis of this evidence, “arguably the hardest question to answer is: What is to be done?” wondered Kass, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Although data consistently show that a body mass index >35 kg/m2 is predictive of major health risks, “weight reduction at that level of obesity is difficult and certainly is not achieved rapidly,” Dr. Kass stressed.
“Therefore ... social distancing; altering behaviors to reduce viral exposure and transmission, such as wearing masks; and instituting policies and health care approaches that recognize the potential effects of obesity should be implemented,” he emphasized. “These actions should help and are certainly doable.”
Similarly, Dr. Tartof and colleagues said their “findings also reveal the distressing collision of two pandemics: COVID-19 and obesity.
“As COVID-19 continues to spread unabated, we must focus our immediate efforts on containing the crisis at hand,” they urged.
However, the findings also “underscore the need for future collective efforts to combat the equally devastating, and potentially synergistic, force of the obesity epidemic.”
COVID-19 pandemic collides with obesity epidemic
Previous studies of obesity and COVID-19 were small, did not adjust for multiple confounders, or did not include nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Tartof and coauthors wrote.
Their study included 6,916 members of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care plan who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 13 to May 2, 2020.
The researchers calculated the risk for death at 21 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis; findings were corrected for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, renal disease, metastatic tumor or malignancy, other immune disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, asthma, organ transplant, and diabetes status.
On the basis of BMI, the patients were classified as being underweight, of normal weight, overweight, or as having class 1, 2, or 3 obesity. BMI of 18.5 to 24 kg/m2 is defined as normal weight.
Class 3 obesity, also called severe obesity, included moderately severe obesity (BMI, 40-44 kg/m2) and extremely severe obesity (≥45 kg/m2).
A little more than half of the patients were women (55%), and more than 50% were Hispanic (54%).
A total of 206 patients (3%) died within 21 days of being diagnosed with COVID-19; of these, 67% had been hospitalized, and 43% had been intubated.
Overall, the COVID-19 patients with moderately severe or extremely severe obesity had a 2.7-fold and 4.2-fold increased risk for death, respectively, within 3 weeks compared with patients of normal weight.
Patients in the other BMI categories did not have a significantly higher risk of dying during follow-up.
However, each decade of increasing age after age 40 was associated with a stepwise increased risk for death within 3 weeks of the COVID-19 diagnosis.
Risk stratified by age and sex
Further analysis showed that, “most strikingly,” among patients aged 60 and younger, those with moderately severe obesity and extremely severe obesity had significant 17-fold and 12-fold higher risks of dying during follow-up, respectively, compared with patients of normal weight, the researchers reported.
In patients older than 60, moderately severe obesity did not confer a significant increased risk for imminent death from COVID-19; extremely severe obesity conferred a smaller, threefold increased risk for this.
“Our finding that severe obesity, particularly among younger patients, eclipses the mortality risk posed by other obesity-related conditions, such as history of myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, suggests a significant pathophysiologic link between excess adiposity and severe COVID-19 illness,” the researchers noted.
This independent increased risk for death with severe obesity was seen in men but not in women.
Men with moderately severe and extremely severe obesity had significant 4.8-fold and 10-fold higher risks of dying within 3 weeks, respectively, compared with men of normal weight.
“That the risks are higher in younger patients is probably not because obesity is particularly damaging in this age group; it is more likely that other serious comorbidities that evolve later in life take over as dominant risk factors,” Dr. Kass suggested in his editorial.
“That males are particularly affected may reflect their greater visceral adiposity over females, given that this fat is notably proinflammatory and contributes to metabolic and vascular disease,” he added.
“As a cardiologist who studies heart failure,” Dr. Kass wrote, “I am struck by how many of the mechanisms that are mentioned in reviews of obesity risk and heart disease are also mentioned in reviews of obesity and COVID-19.”
The study was funded by Roche-Genentech. Kass has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures of the authors are listed in the article.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.