Cardiology

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A blood test that measures lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has received breakthrough device designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay, developed by Roche in partnership with Amgen, is designed to identify adults with elevated Lp(a) levels who may benefit from lipid-lowering therapies currently in development. 

Lp(a) is a type of lipoprotein that is genetically inherited. Elevated levels have been associated with an increased risk for heart disease, stroke, and other blood vessel diseases.

Worldwide, about 1 in 5 people have high Lp(a) levels that are not significantly affected by lifestyle changes, such as diet and exercise. Elevated Lp(a) is particularly prevalent among women and people of African descent.

Lp(a) testing is “an important tool for clinicians, enabling them to make a more accurate assessment of [cardiovascular] risk, and it is expected to become a part of regular diagnostic testing in the coming years,” Roche said in a news release announcing the breakthrough designation for the Lp(a) blood test. 

If approved, the Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay will be available on select Roche cobas platforms, the company reported.

Although low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particles are much more abundant than Lp(a) particles and carry the greatest overall risk for heart disease, on a per-particle basis, atherogenic risk associated with Lp(a) is about six times higher than that associated with LDL cholesterol, a recent study showed.

There currently are no approved pharmacologic therapies to lower Lp(a) levels in the United States, but several hopefuls are in development. 

One is zerlasiran (Silence Therapeutics), a short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, or “gene silencing” therapy, which binds to and temporarily blocks the action of the LPA gene, which encodes for apolipoprotein A, a dominant and rate-limiting component in the hepatic synthesis of the Lp(a) particle.

Treatment with zerlasiran produced significant and sustained reductions in Lp(a) concentrations in adults with elevated Lp(a) in the phase 1 APOLLO trial and the phase 2 ALPACAR-360 trial.

Other siRNA agents in development to lower Lp(a) levels include pelacarsen, lepodisiran, olpasiran, and muvalaplin.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A blood test that measures lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has received breakthrough device designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay, developed by Roche in partnership with Amgen, is designed to identify adults with elevated Lp(a) levels who may benefit from lipid-lowering therapies currently in development. 

Lp(a) is a type of lipoprotein that is genetically inherited. Elevated levels have been associated with an increased risk for heart disease, stroke, and other blood vessel diseases.

Worldwide, about 1 in 5 people have high Lp(a) levels that are not significantly affected by lifestyle changes, such as diet and exercise. Elevated Lp(a) is particularly prevalent among women and people of African descent.

Lp(a) testing is “an important tool for clinicians, enabling them to make a more accurate assessment of [cardiovascular] risk, and it is expected to become a part of regular diagnostic testing in the coming years,” Roche said in a news release announcing the breakthrough designation for the Lp(a) blood test. 

If approved, the Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay will be available on select Roche cobas platforms, the company reported.

Although low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particles are much more abundant than Lp(a) particles and carry the greatest overall risk for heart disease, on a per-particle basis, atherogenic risk associated with Lp(a) is about six times higher than that associated with LDL cholesterol, a recent study showed.

There currently are no approved pharmacologic therapies to lower Lp(a) levels in the United States, but several hopefuls are in development. 

One is zerlasiran (Silence Therapeutics), a short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, or “gene silencing” therapy, which binds to and temporarily blocks the action of the LPA gene, which encodes for apolipoprotein A, a dominant and rate-limiting component in the hepatic synthesis of the Lp(a) particle.

Treatment with zerlasiran produced significant and sustained reductions in Lp(a) concentrations in adults with elevated Lp(a) in the phase 1 APOLLO trial and the phase 2 ALPACAR-360 trial.

Other siRNA agents in development to lower Lp(a) levels include pelacarsen, lepodisiran, olpasiran, and muvalaplin.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A blood test that measures lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has received breakthrough device designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay, developed by Roche in partnership with Amgen, is designed to identify adults with elevated Lp(a) levels who may benefit from lipid-lowering therapies currently in development. 

Lp(a) is a type of lipoprotein that is genetically inherited. Elevated levels have been associated with an increased risk for heart disease, stroke, and other blood vessel diseases.

Worldwide, about 1 in 5 people have high Lp(a) levels that are not significantly affected by lifestyle changes, such as diet and exercise. Elevated Lp(a) is particularly prevalent among women and people of African descent.

Lp(a) testing is “an important tool for clinicians, enabling them to make a more accurate assessment of [cardiovascular] risk, and it is expected to become a part of regular diagnostic testing in the coming years,” Roche said in a news release announcing the breakthrough designation for the Lp(a) blood test. 

If approved, the Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay will be available on select Roche cobas platforms, the company reported.

Although low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particles are much more abundant than Lp(a) particles and carry the greatest overall risk for heart disease, on a per-particle basis, atherogenic risk associated with Lp(a) is about six times higher than that associated with LDL cholesterol, a recent study showed.

There currently are no approved pharmacologic therapies to lower Lp(a) levels in the United States, but several hopefuls are in development. 

One is zerlasiran (Silence Therapeutics), a short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, or “gene silencing” therapy, which binds to and temporarily blocks the action of the LPA gene, which encodes for apolipoprotein A, a dominant and rate-limiting component in the hepatic synthesis of the Lp(a) particle.

Treatment with zerlasiran produced significant and sustained reductions in Lp(a) concentrations in adults with elevated Lp(a) in the phase 1 APOLLO trial and the phase 2 ALPACAR-360 trial.

Other siRNA agents in development to lower Lp(a) levels include pelacarsen, lepodisiran, olpasiran, and muvalaplin.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PULMONARY VASCULAR AND CARDIOVASCULAR NETWORK

Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section

In the right clinical scenario, three key hemodynamic components obtained by right heart catheterization (RHC) define precapillary pulmonary hypertension (PH) warranting vasodilator treatment: mean pulmonary arterial pressure >20 mm Hg, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≤15 mm Hg, and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >2 Wood units.¹ While these cutoffs are straightforward, a gap in practical application is evidenced by considerable variability in how PH providers perform and interpret RHC hemodynamic information.

CHEST

A recent survey of 145 PH providers conducted by CHEST’s Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section shed light on the current RHC practices in the US.² Regarding the respondents’ characteristics, 85% were in the 30-60 age range, 68% were males, and 71% were pulmonologists.

CHEST

About half of the providers perform the RHC themselves. Most review the hemodynamic tracings, but up to 21% rely on the final report alone. Regarding PCWP, most (86%) obtain it during end-expiration, but only 42% routinely measure a PCWP saturation for confirmation. When faced with PVR discrepancies between thermodilution and indirect Fick (IFick), up to 30% chose either IFick or didn’t know which one to trust. Nearly 20% repeat the RHC at least annually, and 80% whenever the patient declines.

CHEST

References

1. Simonneau et al. Eur Resp J. 2019;53(1):1801913

2. Soto et al. CHEST. 2023;164(4):Supplement A5832-A5834

PULMONARY VASCULAR AND CARDIOVASCULAR NETWORK

Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section

In the right clinical scenario, three key hemodynamic components obtained by right heart catheterization (RHC) define precapillary pulmonary hypertension (PH) warranting vasodilator treatment: mean pulmonary arterial pressure >20 mm Hg, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≤15 mm Hg, and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >2 Wood units.¹ While these cutoffs are straightforward, a gap in practical application is evidenced by considerable variability in how PH providers perform and interpret RHC hemodynamic information.

CHEST

A recent survey of 145 PH providers conducted by CHEST’s Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section shed light on the current RHC practices in the US.² Regarding the respondents’ characteristics, 85% were in the 30-60 age range, 68% were males, and 71% were pulmonologists.

CHEST

About half of the providers perform the RHC themselves. Most review the hemodynamic tracings, but up to 21% rely on the final report alone. Regarding PCWP, most (86%) obtain it during end-expiration, but only 42% routinely measure a PCWP saturation for confirmation. When faced with PVR discrepancies between thermodilution and indirect Fick (IFick), up to 30% chose either IFick or didn’t know which one to trust. Nearly 20% repeat the RHC at least annually, and 80% whenever the patient declines.

CHEST

References

1. Simonneau et al. Eur Resp J. 2019;53(1):1801913

2. Soto et al. CHEST. 2023;164(4):Supplement A5832-A5834

PULMONARY VASCULAR AND CARDIOVASCULAR NETWORK

Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section

In the right clinical scenario, three key hemodynamic components obtained by right heart catheterization (RHC) define precapillary pulmonary hypertension (PH) warranting vasodilator treatment: mean pulmonary arterial pressure >20 mm Hg, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≤15 mm Hg, and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >2 Wood units.¹ While these cutoffs are straightforward, a gap in practical application is evidenced by considerable variability in how PH providers perform and interpret RHC hemodynamic information.

CHEST

A recent survey of 145 PH providers conducted by CHEST’s Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section shed light on the current RHC practices in the US.² Regarding the respondents’ characteristics, 85% were in the 30-60 age range, 68% were males, and 71% were pulmonologists.

CHEST

About half of the providers perform the RHC themselves. Most review the hemodynamic tracings, but up to 21% rely on the final report alone. Regarding PCWP, most (86%) obtain it during end-expiration, but only 42% routinely measure a PCWP saturation for confirmation. When faced with PVR discrepancies between thermodilution and indirect Fick (IFick), up to 30% chose either IFick or didn’t know which one to trust. Nearly 20% repeat the RHC at least annually, and 80% whenever the patient declines.

CHEST

References

1. Simonneau et al. Eur Resp J. 2019;53(1):1801913

2. Soto et al. CHEST. 2023;164(4):Supplement A5832-A5834

SAN FRANCISCO — More than a quarter of pregnant or postpartum patients who screened positive for cardiovascular disease ended up with a cardiovascular disease diagnosis when providers used a risk screening tool built into the electronic medical records system for all patients, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Timely diagnosis of cardiovascular disease is critical, though challenging, since pregnancy is a state of hemodynamic stress with symptoms that are like those of cardiovascular disease, and healthcare providers may not suspect cardiovascular disease in pregnant patients with symptoms of it,” Kevin Flatley, MD, a resident ob.gyn. at Montefiore Health System and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, told attendees at the conference. “The cardiovascular risk assessment tool proved valuable for identifying and providing individualized care for cardio-obstetric patients.”

The study senior author, Diana S. Wolfe, MD, MPH, associate division director of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Montefiore Health System and associate professor of medicine in cardiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in an interview that cardiovascular risk in Montefiore’s urban population is significant.

“Cardiovascular disease risk screening identifies true cardiac disease in this population and can change the medical management and outcome of pregnant and postpartum patients,” Dr. Wolfe said. Screening has the potential to decrease maternal morbidity and mortality in our country, she said.

Dawnette Lewis, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Maternal Health at Northwell Health and an ob.gyn. and maternal fetal medicine specialist who was not involved in the study, was impressed with the research.

“We know that cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality,” Dr. Lewis said in an interview. “It is important to have an accurate risk assessment score, so I think what is being presented in this abstract is great.” She said she’s aware that other cardio-obstetric programs across the country are also implementing cardiovascular risk assessment tools during pregnancy.

The researchers built into their electronic health records a screening algorithm developed by the California Maternal Quality Care Initiative that had been based on a retrospective review of cardiovascular maternal deaths in California from 2002 to 2006. Their study aimed to identify the true positives — those who actually had cardiovascular disease — of those determined to be at risk by the screening toolkit.

The institution’s goal was for all patients to undergo a screening risk assessment at least once during prenatal and/or postpartum visits. Patients were considered to screen positive if they had at least one symptom, at least one vital sign abnormality, and at least one risk factor, or any combination of these that added up to 4.

Symptoms in the screening tool included shortness of breath, shortness of breath while lying flat, a rapid heart rate, asthma that was unresponsive to therapy, palpitations, fainting or other loss of consciousness, and chest pain. Abnormal vital signs included a resting heart rate of 110 bpm or greater, systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher, a respiratory rate of 24 or higher, and an oxygen saturation of 96% or lower.

Risk factors included being 40 or older, being Black, having a pre-pregnancy BMI of 35 or greater, preexisting diabetes, hypertension, substance use, and a history of cancer, chemotherapy, or chest radiation. “Current practice acknowledges that the risk factor currently included in the algorithm of self-identified as Black actually represents racism, bias, and social determinants of health, known risk factors for CVD,” Wolfe said.

Patients who screened positive underwent an echocardiogram, a cardio-obstetric consultation, and an additional work-up.

During the June 2022–September 2023 study period, 148 out of 1877 screened patients (7.9%) had a positive screen. Of these, 108 were false positives and 40 (27%) were true positives. The number of true false positives is not known because many women did not come for their workups.* The true positives mostly included patients with mild valvular disease, but about a quarter had mild, moderate, or severe ventricular dilation or hypertrophy and a little less than a quarter were positive for systolic or diastolic dysfunction.

Most (72.5%) of the 40 true-positive cases needed a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team plan, and 11 patients (27.5%) needed follow-up and had multiple visits with the cardio-obstetrics team. Six of the true-positive cases (15%) “were deemed to be of higher risk for decompensation during labor and required detailed plans for intrapartum and postpartum management,” the researchers reported. Nine patients (22.5%) began new cardiovascular medications.

This research is a validation study of the current algorithm, Wolfe said, and the algorithm will be revised based on the results of the completed validation study.

“The objective is universal cardiovascular risk screening for all pregnant and postpartum persons in the US,” Wolfe said. “Once the data collection from this validation study is concluded, our goal is to disseminate a revised CVD risk screening tool that can be implemented into the electronic medical records of all institutions in our country.”

*The study partially funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development award #5R21HD101783. All the authors and Dr. Lewis had no disclosures. Dr. Afshan B. Hameed of the University of California at Irvine was a partner in the study.

*This study was updated on May 30, 2024.

SAN FRANCISCO — More than a quarter of pregnant or postpartum patients who screened positive for cardiovascular disease ended up with a cardiovascular disease diagnosis when providers used a risk screening tool built into the electronic medical records system for all patients, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Timely diagnosis of cardiovascular disease is critical, though challenging, since pregnancy is a state of hemodynamic stress with symptoms that are like those of cardiovascular disease, and healthcare providers may not suspect cardiovascular disease in pregnant patients with symptoms of it,” Kevin Flatley, MD, a resident ob.gyn. at Montefiore Health System and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, told attendees at the conference. “The cardiovascular risk assessment tool proved valuable for identifying and providing individualized care for cardio-obstetric patients.”

The study senior author, Diana S. Wolfe, MD, MPH, associate division director of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Montefiore Health System and associate professor of medicine in cardiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in an interview that cardiovascular risk in Montefiore’s urban population is significant.

“Cardiovascular disease risk screening identifies true cardiac disease in this population and can change the medical management and outcome of pregnant and postpartum patients,” Dr. Wolfe said. Screening has the potential to decrease maternal morbidity and mortality in our country, she said.

Dawnette Lewis, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Maternal Health at Northwell Health and an ob.gyn. and maternal fetal medicine specialist who was not involved in the study, was impressed with the research.

“We know that cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality,” Dr. Lewis said in an interview. “It is important to have an accurate risk assessment score, so I think what is being presented in this abstract is great.” She said she’s aware that other cardio-obstetric programs across the country are also implementing cardiovascular risk assessment tools during pregnancy.

The researchers built into their electronic health records a screening algorithm developed by the California Maternal Quality Care Initiative that had been based on a retrospective review of cardiovascular maternal deaths in California from 2002 to 2006. Their study aimed to identify the true positives — those who actually had cardiovascular disease — of those determined to be at risk by the screening toolkit.

The institution’s goal was for all patients to undergo a screening risk assessment at least once during prenatal and/or postpartum visits. Patients were considered to screen positive if they had at least one symptom, at least one vital sign abnormality, and at least one risk factor, or any combination of these that added up to 4.

Symptoms in the screening tool included shortness of breath, shortness of breath while lying flat, a rapid heart rate, asthma that was unresponsive to therapy, palpitations, fainting or other loss of consciousness, and chest pain. Abnormal vital signs included a resting heart rate of 110 bpm or greater, systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher, a respiratory rate of 24 or higher, and an oxygen saturation of 96% or lower.

Risk factors included being 40 or older, being Black, having a pre-pregnancy BMI of 35 or greater, preexisting diabetes, hypertension, substance use, and a history of cancer, chemotherapy, or chest radiation. “Current practice acknowledges that the risk factor currently included in the algorithm of self-identified as Black actually represents racism, bias, and social determinants of health, known risk factors for CVD,” Wolfe said.

Patients who screened positive underwent an echocardiogram, a cardio-obstetric consultation, and an additional work-up.

During the June 2022–September 2023 study period, 148 out of 1877 screened patients (7.9%) had a positive screen. Of these, 108 were false positives and 40 (27%) were true positives. The number of true false positives is not known because many women did not come for their workups.* The true positives mostly included patients with mild valvular disease, but about a quarter had mild, moderate, or severe ventricular dilation or hypertrophy and a little less than a quarter were positive for systolic or diastolic dysfunction.

Most (72.5%) of the 40 true-positive cases needed a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team plan, and 11 patients (27.5%) needed follow-up and had multiple visits with the cardio-obstetrics team. Six of the true-positive cases (15%) “were deemed to be of higher risk for decompensation during labor and required detailed plans for intrapartum and postpartum management,” the researchers reported. Nine patients (22.5%) began new cardiovascular medications.

This research is a validation study of the current algorithm, Wolfe said, and the algorithm will be revised based on the results of the completed validation study.

“The objective is universal cardiovascular risk screening for all pregnant and postpartum persons in the US,” Wolfe said. “Once the data collection from this validation study is concluded, our goal is to disseminate a revised CVD risk screening tool that can be implemented into the electronic medical records of all institutions in our country.”

*The study partially funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development award #5R21HD101783. All the authors and Dr. Lewis had no disclosures. Dr. Afshan B. Hameed of the University of California at Irvine was a partner in the study.

*This study was updated on May 30, 2024.

SAN FRANCISCO — More than a quarter of pregnant or postpartum patients who screened positive for cardiovascular disease ended up with a cardiovascular disease diagnosis when providers used a risk screening tool built into the electronic medical records system for all patients, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Timely diagnosis of cardiovascular disease is critical, though challenging, since pregnancy is a state of hemodynamic stress with symptoms that are like those of cardiovascular disease, and healthcare providers may not suspect cardiovascular disease in pregnant patients with symptoms of it,” Kevin Flatley, MD, a resident ob.gyn. at Montefiore Health System and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, told attendees at the conference. “The cardiovascular risk assessment tool proved valuable for identifying and providing individualized care for cardio-obstetric patients.”

The study senior author, Diana S. Wolfe, MD, MPH, associate division director of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Montefiore Health System and associate professor of medicine in cardiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in an interview that cardiovascular risk in Montefiore’s urban population is significant.

“Cardiovascular disease risk screening identifies true cardiac disease in this population and can change the medical management and outcome of pregnant and postpartum patients,” Dr. Wolfe said. Screening has the potential to decrease maternal morbidity and mortality in our country, she said.

Dawnette Lewis, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Maternal Health at Northwell Health and an ob.gyn. and maternal fetal medicine specialist who was not involved in the study, was impressed with the research.

“We know that cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality,” Dr. Lewis said in an interview. “It is important to have an accurate risk assessment score, so I think what is being presented in this abstract is great.” She said she’s aware that other cardio-obstetric programs across the country are also implementing cardiovascular risk assessment tools during pregnancy.

The researchers built into their electronic health records a screening algorithm developed by the California Maternal Quality Care Initiative that had been based on a retrospective review of cardiovascular maternal deaths in California from 2002 to 2006. Their study aimed to identify the true positives — those who actually had cardiovascular disease — of those determined to be at risk by the screening toolkit.

The institution’s goal was for all patients to undergo a screening risk assessment at least once during prenatal and/or postpartum visits. Patients were considered to screen positive if they had at least one symptom, at least one vital sign abnormality, and at least one risk factor, or any combination of these that added up to 4.

Symptoms in the screening tool included shortness of breath, shortness of breath while lying flat, a rapid heart rate, asthma that was unresponsive to therapy, palpitations, fainting or other loss of consciousness, and chest pain. Abnormal vital signs included a resting heart rate of 110 bpm or greater, systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher, a respiratory rate of 24 or higher, and an oxygen saturation of 96% or lower.

Risk factors included being 40 or older, being Black, having a pre-pregnancy BMI of 35 or greater, preexisting diabetes, hypertension, substance use, and a history of cancer, chemotherapy, or chest radiation. “Current practice acknowledges that the risk factor currently included in the algorithm of self-identified as Black actually represents racism, bias, and social determinants of health, known risk factors for CVD,” Wolfe said.

Patients who screened positive underwent an echocardiogram, a cardio-obstetric consultation, and an additional work-up.

During the June 2022–September 2023 study period, 148 out of 1877 screened patients (7.9%) had a positive screen. Of these, 108 were false positives and 40 (27%) were true positives. The number of true false positives is not known because many women did not come for their workups.* The true positives mostly included patients with mild valvular disease, but about a quarter had mild, moderate, or severe ventricular dilation or hypertrophy and a little less than a quarter were positive for systolic or diastolic dysfunction.

Most (72.5%) of the 40 true-positive cases needed a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team plan, and 11 patients (27.5%) needed follow-up and had multiple visits with the cardio-obstetrics team. Six of the true-positive cases (15%) “were deemed to be of higher risk for decompensation during labor and required detailed plans for intrapartum and postpartum management,” the researchers reported. Nine patients (22.5%) began new cardiovascular medications.

This research is a validation study of the current algorithm, Wolfe said, and the algorithm will be revised based on the results of the completed validation study.

“The objective is universal cardiovascular risk screening for all pregnant and postpartum persons in the US,” Wolfe said. “Once the data collection from this validation study is concluded, our goal is to disseminate a revised CVD risk screening tool that can be implemented into the electronic medical records of all institutions in our country.”

*The study partially funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development award #5R21HD101783. All the authors and Dr. Lewis had no disclosures. Dr. Afshan B. Hameed of the University of California at Irvine was a partner in the study.

*This study was updated on May 30, 2024.

Patients at least 75 years old saw a reduced risk of overall cardiovascular incidence with statin therapy without increased risk of severe adverse effects in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Of note, the benefits and safety of statin therapy were consistently found in adults aged 85 years or older,” wrote the authors, led by Wanchun Xu, a PhD student with the Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, in the Special Administrative Region, China.

Geriatrician Jerry H. Gurwitz, MD, the Dr. John Meyers Professor in Primary Care Medicine at UMass Chan Medical School in Boston, said he found the results of this trial “remarkable,” but is awaiting the results of the much-anticipated randomized, controlled PREVENTABLE trial years from now for more definitive evidence.
 

Little Consensus on Statins for This Age Group

Prescribing statins for primary prevention of CVD in the most senior patient groups has been controversial. There is little consensus as patients in this age group have been underrepresented in randomized controlled trials.

Major guidelines for use of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, exclude specific guidance for statin use in patients older than 75, citing insufficient evidence.

Ms. Xu and colleagues used territory-wide electronic health records in a sequential target trial emulation comparing matched cohorts that did or did not start statins. There were 42,680 matched person-trials in the group of patients aged 75-84 years and 5,390 matched person-trials in the 85 and older group. The average follow-up was 5.3 years and people with CVDs at baseline, such as coronary heart disease, were excluded. Patients who met indications for statin initiation from January 2008 to December 2015 were included.

Risk Reduction Seen in Both Senior Groups

Of the 42,680 matched person-trials in the 75-84 age group, 9676 developed cardiovascular disease; of the 5390 in the 85-plus group, 1600 developed CVD.

In the younger cohort, the 5-year reduced risk for overall CVD incidence when statin therapy was initiated was 1.20% (95% CI, 0.57%-1.82%) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; 5.00% (95% CI, 1.11%-8.89%) in the per protocol (PP) analysis.

Reduced risk for overall CVD incidence in the 85-and-older group when statins were initiated was 4.44% in the ITT analysis (95% CI, 1.40%-7.48%); and 12.50% in the PP analysis (95% CI, 4.33%-20.66%). There was no significantly increased risk for liver dysfunction or myopathies in either age group, the authors stated.

One of the biggest strengths of the study is the use of population-based data over a long period. One of the limitations was that the researchers were not able to measure lifestyle factors such as diet and physical activity in their analysis.

Dr. Gurwitz, who has done drug research in older adults for decades, said “the results are very compelling,” and in the oldest group “almost too compelling. Wow.”

Numbers Needed to Treat Are Strikingly Low

He noted that the authors thoroughly acknowledge limitations of the trial. But he also pointed to the impressive number needed to treat reported by the researchers.

The authors stated: “[O]n the basis of the estimated absolute risk reduction in the PP analysis, the number needed to treat [NNT] to prevent 1 CVD event in 5 years was 20 (95% CI, 11-90) in those aged 75-84 years and 8 (95% CI, 5-23) in those aged 85 years or older.”

For perspective, he said, “Sometimes you’re seeing numbers needed to treat for vaccinations of 400 to prevent one hospitalization. They are using real-world information and they are seeing this remarkable effect. If it’s that good in the real world, it’s going to be even better in a clinical trial. That’s why I have some reservations about whether it’s really that good.”

Dr. Gurwitz said, “I’m not ready to start an 87-year-old on statin therapy who hasn’t been on it before for primary prevention, despite the results of this very well done study.” He will await the findings of PREVENTABLE, which aims to enroll 20,000 people at least 75 years old to look at statin use. But in the meantime, he will discuss the Xu et al. results and other evidence with patients if they request statins and may prescribe them as part of shared decision making.

He said the question of whether to use statins in primary prevention is similar to the question of whether to use aspirin as primary prevention for CVD in older adults.

Originally, “Most of us thought, yes, it’s probably a good thing,” he said, but now “there have been a lot of deprescribing efforts to get older people off of aspirin.

“In the United States, believe it or not, 48% of people 75 and older are on statins already,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “Maybe that’s good,” he said, but added physicians won’t know for sure until PREVENTABLE results are in.

“If I didn’t already know the PREVENTABLE trial was going on, and it was never going to happen, I would find this [Xu et al. study] very influential,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “I’m willing to wait.”

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund, Health Bureau, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Coauthors reported grants from the Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, the Malaysian College of Family Physicians, and the International Association of Chinese Nephrologists in Hong Kong. Dr. Gurwitz reported no relevant financial relationships.

Patients at least 75 years old saw a reduced risk of overall cardiovascular incidence with statin therapy without increased risk of severe adverse effects in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Of note, the benefits and safety of statin therapy were consistently found in adults aged 85 years or older,” wrote the authors, led by Wanchun Xu, a PhD student with the Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, in the Special Administrative Region, China.

Geriatrician Jerry H. Gurwitz, MD, the Dr. John Meyers Professor in Primary Care Medicine at UMass Chan Medical School in Boston, said he found the results of this trial “remarkable,” but is awaiting the results of the much-anticipated randomized, controlled PREVENTABLE trial years from now for more definitive evidence.
 

Little Consensus on Statins for This Age Group

Prescribing statins for primary prevention of CVD in the most senior patient groups has been controversial. There is little consensus as patients in this age group have been underrepresented in randomized controlled trials.

Major guidelines for use of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, exclude specific guidance for statin use in patients older than 75, citing insufficient evidence.

Ms. Xu and colleagues used territory-wide electronic health records in a sequential target trial emulation comparing matched cohorts that did or did not start statins. There were 42,680 matched person-trials in the group of patients aged 75-84 years and 5,390 matched person-trials in the 85 and older group. The average follow-up was 5.3 years and people with CVDs at baseline, such as coronary heart disease, were excluded. Patients who met indications for statin initiation from January 2008 to December 2015 were included.

Risk Reduction Seen in Both Senior Groups

Of the 42,680 matched person-trials in the 75-84 age group, 9676 developed cardiovascular disease; of the 5390 in the 85-plus group, 1600 developed CVD.

In the younger cohort, the 5-year reduced risk for overall CVD incidence when statin therapy was initiated was 1.20% (95% CI, 0.57%-1.82%) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; 5.00% (95% CI, 1.11%-8.89%) in the per protocol (PP) analysis.

Reduced risk for overall CVD incidence in the 85-and-older group when statins were initiated was 4.44% in the ITT analysis (95% CI, 1.40%-7.48%); and 12.50% in the PP analysis (95% CI, 4.33%-20.66%). There was no significantly increased risk for liver dysfunction or myopathies in either age group, the authors stated.

One of the biggest strengths of the study is the use of population-based data over a long period. One of the limitations was that the researchers were not able to measure lifestyle factors such as diet and physical activity in their analysis.

Dr. Gurwitz, who has done drug research in older adults for decades, said “the results are very compelling,” and in the oldest group “almost too compelling. Wow.”

Numbers Needed to Treat Are Strikingly Low

He noted that the authors thoroughly acknowledge limitations of the trial. But he also pointed to the impressive number needed to treat reported by the researchers.

The authors stated: “[O]n the basis of the estimated absolute risk reduction in the PP analysis, the number needed to treat [NNT] to prevent 1 CVD event in 5 years was 20 (95% CI, 11-90) in those aged 75-84 years and 8 (95% CI, 5-23) in those aged 85 years or older.”

For perspective, he said, “Sometimes you’re seeing numbers needed to treat for vaccinations of 400 to prevent one hospitalization. They are using real-world information and they are seeing this remarkable effect. If it’s that good in the real world, it’s going to be even better in a clinical trial. That’s why I have some reservations about whether it’s really that good.”

Dr. Gurwitz said, “I’m not ready to start an 87-year-old on statin therapy who hasn’t been on it before for primary prevention, despite the results of this very well done study.” He will await the findings of PREVENTABLE, which aims to enroll 20,000 people at least 75 years old to look at statin use. But in the meantime, he will discuss the Xu et al. results and other evidence with patients if they request statins and may prescribe them as part of shared decision making.

He said the question of whether to use statins in primary prevention is similar to the question of whether to use aspirin as primary prevention for CVD in older adults.

Originally, “Most of us thought, yes, it’s probably a good thing,” he said, but now “there have been a lot of deprescribing efforts to get older people off of aspirin.

“In the United States, believe it or not, 48% of people 75 and older are on statins already,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “Maybe that’s good,” he said, but added physicians won’t know for sure until PREVENTABLE results are in.

“If I didn’t already know the PREVENTABLE trial was going on, and it was never going to happen, I would find this [Xu et al. study] very influential,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “I’m willing to wait.”

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund, Health Bureau, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Coauthors reported grants from the Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, the Malaysian College of Family Physicians, and the International Association of Chinese Nephrologists in Hong Kong. Dr. Gurwitz reported no relevant financial relationships.

Patients at least 75 years old saw a reduced risk of overall cardiovascular incidence with statin therapy without increased risk of severe adverse effects in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Of note, the benefits and safety of statin therapy were consistently found in adults aged 85 years or older,” wrote the authors, led by Wanchun Xu, a PhD student with the Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, in the Special Administrative Region, China.

Geriatrician Jerry H. Gurwitz, MD, the Dr. John Meyers Professor in Primary Care Medicine at UMass Chan Medical School in Boston, said he found the results of this trial “remarkable,” but is awaiting the results of the much-anticipated randomized, controlled PREVENTABLE trial years from now for more definitive evidence.
 

Little Consensus on Statins for This Age Group

Prescribing statins for primary prevention of CVD in the most senior patient groups has been controversial. There is little consensus as patients in this age group have been underrepresented in randomized controlled trials.

Major guidelines for use of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, exclude specific guidance for statin use in patients older than 75, citing insufficient evidence.

Ms. Xu and colleagues used territory-wide electronic health records in a sequential target trial emulation comparing matched cohorts that did or did not start statins. There were 42,680 matched person-trials in the group of patients aged 75-84 years and 5,390 matched person-trials in the 85 and older group. The average follow-up was 5.3 years and people with CVDs at baseline, such as coronary heart disease, were excluded. Patients who met indications for statin initiation from January 2008 to December 2015 were included.

Risk Reduction Seen in Both Senior Groups

Of the 42,680 matched person-trials in the 75-84 age group, 9676 developed cardiovascular disease; of the 5390 in the 85-plus group, 1600 developed CVD.

In the younger cohort, the 5-year reduced risk for overall CVD incidence when statin therapy was initiated was 1.20% (95% CI, 0.57%-1.82%) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; 5.00% (95% CI, 1.11%-8.89%) in the per protocol (PP) analysis.

Reduced risk for overall CVD incidence in the 85-and-older group when statins were initiated was 4.44% in the ITT analysis (95% CI, 1.40%-7.48%); and 12.50% in the PP analysis (95% CI, 4.33%-20.66%). There was no significantly increased risk for liver dysfunction or myopathies in either age group, the authors stated.

One of the biggest strengths of the study is the use of population-based data over a long period. One of the limitations was that the researchers were not able to measure lifestyle factors such as diet and physical activity in their analysis.

Dr. Gurwitz, who has done drug research in older adults for decades, said “the results are very compelling,” and in the oldest group “almost too compelling. Wow.”

Numbers Needed to Treat Are Strikingly Low

He noted that the authors thoroughly acknowledge limitations of the trial. But he also pointed to the impressive number needed to treat reported by the researchers.

The authors stated: “[O]n the basis of the estimated absolute risk reduction in the PP analysis, the number needed to treat [NNT] to prevent 1 CVD event in 5 years was 20 (95% CI, 11-90) in those aged 75-84 years and 8 (95% CI, 5-23) in those aged 85 years or older.”

For perspective, he said, “Sometimes you’re seeing numbers needed to treat for vaccinations of 400 to prevent one hospitalization. They are using real-world information and they are seeing this remarkable effect. If it’s that good in the real world, it’s going to be even better in a clinical trial. That’s why I have some reservations about whether it’s really that good.”

Dr. Gurwitz said, “I’m not ready to start an 87-year-old on statin therapy who hasn’t been on it before for primary prevention, despite the results of this very well done study.” He will await the findings of PREVENTABLE, which aims to enroll 20,000 people at least 75 years old to look at statin use. But in the meantime, he will discuss the Xu et al. results and other evidence with patients if they request statins and may prescribe them as part of shared decision making.

He said the question of whether to use statins in primary prevention is similar to the question of whether to use aspirin as primary prevention for CVD in older adults.

Originally, “Most of us thought, yes, it’s probably a good thing,” he said, but now “there have been a lot of deprescribing efforts to get older people off of aspirin.

“In the United States, believe it or not, 48% of people 75 and older are on statins already,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “Maybe that’s good,” he said, but added physicians won’t know for sure until PREVENTABLE results are in.

“If I didn’t already know the PREVENTABLE trial was going on, and it was never going to happen, I would find this [Xu et al. study] very influential,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “I’m willing to wait.”

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund, Health Bureau, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Coauthors reported grants from the Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, the Malaysian College of Family Physicians, and the International Association of Chinese Nephrologists in Hong Kong. Dr. Gurwitz reported no relevant financial relationships.

According to a US cross-sectional study, every fifth hospital patient with a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection develops an acute cardiovascular event. For patients with a preexisting cardiovascular condition, an acute cardiovascular event occurs in every third patient, as shown by data published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

RSV attacks the respiratory tract, especially the mucous membranes of the upper airways and the ciliated epithelium of the trachea and bronchi. It is not the first respiratory virus with devastating consequences for the cardiovascular system.

“In the COVID-19 pandemic, we painfully learned that patients with preexisting cardiovascular conditions have significantly higher mortality rates and that cardiovascular causes are essential in COVID-19 mortality,” said Stephan Baldus, MD, director of Clinic III for Internal Medicine at the Heart Center of the University Hospital Cologne in Cologne, Germany.

“A direct link between the virus and the development of acute coronary events has also been demonstrated for influenza. Studies have shown that in the early days of an influenza infection, the rates of heart attacks and subsequent deaths increase significantly,” Dr. Baldus added. “And now, this study shows that patients with cardiovascular diseases have a critically increased risk for an acute cardiovascular event during an RSV infection.”
 

RSV Surveillance

Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues analyzed data from an RSV surveillance program involving hospitals in 12 US states. The data covered hospitalized adults aged 50 years and older from five RSV seasons (from 2014/2015 to 2017/2018 and 2022/2023).

The 6248 patients were hospitalized for various reasons. They had a mean age of 73 years, and 60% of them were women. RSV infection was detected through a physician-ordered test within 14 days of admission. Slightly more than half (56.4%) of the patients had a preexisting cardiovascular condition that did not necessitate hospital treatment.

The researchers reported that more than a fifth (22.4%) of the patients with RSV had an acute cardiovascular event. Acute heart failure was most common (15.8%), but there were also acute ischemic heart disease in 7.5%, hypertensive crisis in 1.3%, ventricular tachycardia in 1.1%, and cardiogenic shock in 0.6%.
 

Acute Cardiovascular Events

Among the study population, 8.5% had no documented cardiovascular preexisting conditions. However, the risk was particularly elevated in patients with cardiovascular preexisting conditions. Overall, 33.0% of them had an acute cardiovascular event during the RSV infection.

Patients with acute cardiovascular events were almost twice as likely to have a severe course as those without acute cardiovascular events. The researchers considered treatment in the intensive care unit, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or the patient’s death in the hospital as severe outcomes.

Of all hospitalized patients with RSV, 18.6% required intensive care unit treatment, and 4.9% died during hospitalization. Compared with those without acute cardiovascular events, those with acute cardiovascular events had a significantly higher risk for intensive care treatment (25.8% vs 16.5%) and death in the hospital (8.1% vs 4.0%).

Although the analysis is not a prospective controlled study, according to Dr. Baldus, the results strongly suggest that RSV has cardiovascular effects. “When one in five hospitalized patients develops a cardiovascular event, that’s very suggestive,” he said.
 

More Testing Needed?

The results add to the evidence that RSV infections in older patients are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Unlike for COVID-19 and influenza, however, there is hardly any surveillance for RSV infections. RSV testing in hospitals is rare. Many doctors opt against testing for RSV because they are not aware of the importance of RSV as a pathogen in adults, but also because the diagnosis of RSV has no therapeutic consequences, wrote Dr. Woodruff and her colleagues.

Because there is no targeted therapy for an RSV infection, the detection of RSV can only be used as a marker for a risk for the development of an acute cardiovascular event, according to Dr. Baldus. Even considering the new study data, he emphasized, “Not every patient with a cardiovascular preexisting condition needs to be tested for RSV.”

The crucial factor is the clinical presentation. “If there is a clinical indication of pulmonary impairment (shortness of breath, tachypnea, subfebrile temperatures, or a diminished general condition) it would be desirable to perform an RSV test. This is especially true for patients requiring intensive care who need respiratory support,” said Dr. Baldus.
 

Benefits of Vaccination

The results highlight the basic epidemiology of potential cardiovascular complications of RSV infections, but before RSV vaccination became available, wrote Dr. Woodruff and her colleagues.

In 2023, the first RSV vaccine for adults aged 60 years and older was approved. “Here, a door to additional possibilities opens,” said Dr. Baldus. Although there are currently no official vaccination recommendations from Germany’s Standing Vaccination Commission, medical societies of oncologists and pulmonologists recommend vaccination against RSV. “Given the relevance of cardiovascular diseases for the prognosis of patients, but also for the occurrence of an acute cardiovascular event upon detection of RSV, the corresponding recommendation is expected to come,” said Dr. Baldus.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a US cross-sectional study, every fifth hospital patient with a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection develops an acute cardiovascular event. For patients with a preexisting cardiovascular condition, an acute cardiovascular event occurs in every third patient, as shown by data published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

RSV attacks the respiratory tract, especially the mucous membranes of the upper airways and the ciliated epithelium of the trachea and bronchi. It is not the first respiratory virus with devastating consequences for the cardiovascular system.

“In the COVID-19 pandemic, we painfully learned that patients with preexisting cardiovascular conditions have significantly higher mortality rates and that cardiovascular causes are essential in COVID-19 mortality,” said Stephan Baldus, MD, director of Clinic III for Internal Medicine at the Heart Center of the University Hospital Cologne in Cologne, Germany.

“A direct link between the virus and the development of acute coronary events has also been demonstrated for influenza. Studies have shown that in the early days of an influenza infection, the rates of heart attacks and subsequent deaths increase significantly,” Dr. Baldus added. “And now, this study shows that patients with cardiovascular diseases have a critically increased risk for an acute cardiovascular event during an RSV infection.”
 

RSV Surveillance

Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues analyzed data from an RSV surveillance program involving hospitals in 12 US states. The data covered hospitalized adults aged 50 years and older from five RSV seasons (from 2014/2015 to 2017/2018 and 2022/2023).

The 6248 patients were hospitalized for various reasons. They had a mean age of 73 years, and 60% of them were women. RSV infection was detected through a physician-ordered test within 14 days of admission. Slightly more than half (56.4%) of the patients had a preexisting cardiovascular condition that did not necessitate hospital treatment.

The researchers reported that more than a fifth (22.4%) of the patients with RSV had an acute cardiovascular event. Acute heart failure was most common (15.8%), but there were also acute ischemic heart disease in 7.5%, hypertensive crisis in 1.3%, ventricular tachycardia in 1.1%, and cardiogenic shock in 0.6%.
 

Acute Cardiovascular Events

Among the study population, 8.5% had no documented cardiovascular preexisting conditions. However, the risk was particularly elevated in patients with cardiovascular preexisting conditions. Overall, 33.0% of them had an acute cardiovascular event during the RSV infection.

Patients with acute cardiovascular events were almost twice as likely to have a severe course as those without acute cardiovascular events. The researchers considered treatment in the intensive care unit, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or the patient’s death in the hospital as severe outcomes.

Of all hospitalized patients with RSV, 18.6% required intensive care unit treatment, and 4.9% died during hospitalization. Compared with those without acute cardiovascular events, those with acute cardiovascular events had a significantly higher risk for intensive care treatment (25.8% vs 16.5%) and death in the hospital (8.1% vs 4.0%).

Although the analysis is not a prospective controlled study, according to Dr. Baldus, the results strongly suggest that RSV has cardiovascular effects. “When one in five hospitalized patients develops a cardiovascular event, that’s very suggestive,” he said.
 

More Testing Needed?

The results add to the evidence that RSV infections in older patients are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Unlike for COVID-19 and influenza, however, there is hardly any surveillance for RSV infections. RSV testing in hospitals is rare. Many doctors opt against testing for RSV because they are not aware of the importance of RSV as a pathogen in adults, but also because the diagnosis of RSV has no therapeutic consequences, wrote Dr. Woodruff and her colleagues.

Because there is no targeted therapy for an RSV infection, the detection of RSV can only be used as a marker for a risk for the development of an acute cardiovascular event, according to Dr. Baldus. Even considering the new study data, he emphasized, “Not every patient with a cardiovascular preexisting condition needs to be tested for RSV.”

The crucial factor is the clinical presentation. “If there is a clinical indication of pulmonary impairment (shortness of breath, tachypnea, subfebrile temperatures, or a diminished general condition) it would be desirable to perform an RSV test. This is especially true for patients requiring intensive care who need respiratory support,” said Dr. Baldus.
 

Benefits of Vaccination

The results highlight the basic epidemiology of potential cardiovascular complications of RSV infections, but before RSV vaccination became available, wrote Dr. Woodruff and her colleagues.

In 2023, the first RSV vaccine for adults aged 60 years and older was approved. “Here, a door to additional possibilities opens,” said Dr. Baldus. Although there are currently no official vaccination recommendations from Germany’s Standing Vaccination Commission, medical societies of oncologists and pulmonologists recommend vaccination against RSV. “Given the relevance of cardiovascular diseases for the prognosis of patients, but also for the occurrence of an acute cardiovascular event upon detection of RSV, the corresponding recommendation is expected to come,” said Dr. Baldus.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a US cross-sectional study, every fifth hospital patient with a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection develops an acute cardiovascular event. For patients with a preexisting cardiovascular condition, an acute cardiovascular event occurs in every third patient, as shown by data published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

RSV attacks the respiratory tract, especially the mucous membranes of the upper airways and the ciliated epithelium of the trachea and bronchi. It is not the first respiratory virus with devastating consequences for the cardiovascular system.

“In the COVID-19 pandemic, we painfully learned that patients with preexisting cardiovascular conditions have significantly higher mortality rates and that cardiovascular causes are essential in COVID-19 mortality,” said Stephan Baldus, MD, director of Clinic III for Internal Medicine at the Heart Center of the University Hospital Cologne in Cologne, Germany.

“A direct link between the virus and the development of acute coronary events has also been demonstrated for influenza. Studies have shown that in the early days of an influenza infection, the rates of heart attacks and subsequent deaths increase significantly,” Dr. Baldus added. “And now, this study shows that patients with cardiovascular diseases have a critically increased risk for an acute cardiovascular event during an RSV infection.”
 

RSV Surveillance

Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues analyzed data from an RSV surveillance program involving hospitals in 12 US states. The data covered hospitalized adults aged 50 years and older from five RSV seasons (from 2014/2015 to 2017/2018 and 2022/2023).

The 6248 patients were hospitalized for various reasons. They had a mean age of 73 years, and 60% of them were women. RSV infection was detected through a physician-ordered test within 14 days of admission. Slightly more than half (56.4%) of the patients had a preexisting cardiovascular condition that did not necessitate hospital treatment.

The researchers reported that more than a fifth (22.4%) of the patients with RSV had an acute cardiovascular event. Acute heart failure was most common (15.8%), but there were also acute ischemic heart disease in 7.5%, hypertensive crisis in 1.3%, ventricular tachycardia in 1.1%, and cardiogenic shock in 0.6%.
 

Acute Cardiovascular Events

Among the study population, 8.5% had no documented cardiovascular preexisting conditions. However, the risk was particularly elevated in patients with cardiovascular preexisting conditions. Overall, 33.0% of them had an acute cardiovascular event during the RSV infection.

Patients with acute cardiovascular events were almost twice as likely to have a severe course as those without acute cardiovascular events. The researchers considered treatment in the intensive care unit, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or the patient’s death in the hospital as severe outcomes.

Of all hospitalized patients with RSV, 18.6% required intensive care unit treatment, and 4.9% died during hospitalization. Compared with those without acute cardiovascular events, those with acute cardiovascular events had a significantly higher risk for intensive care treatment (25.8% vs 16.5%) and death in the hospital (8.1% vs 4.0%).

Although the analysis is not a prospective controlled study, according to Dr. Baldus, the results strongly suggest that RSV has cardiovascular effects. “When one in five hospitalized patients develops a cardiovascular event, that’s very suggestive,” he said.
 

More Testing Needed?

The results add to the evidence that RSV infections in older patients are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Unlike for COVID-19 and influenza, however, there is hardly any surveillance for RSV infections. RSV testing in hospitals is rare. Many doctors opt against testing for RSV because they are not aware of the importance of RSV as a pathogen in adults, but also because the diagnosis of RSV has no therapeutic consequences, wrote Dr. Woodruff and her colleagues.

Because there is no targeted therapy for an RSV infection, the detection of RSV can only be used as a marker for a risk for the development of an acute cardiovascular event, according to Dr. Baldus. Even considering the new study data, he emphasized, “Not every patient with a cardiovascular preexisting condition needs to be tested for RSV.”

The crucial factor is the clinical presentation. “If there is a clinical indication of pulmonary impairment (shortness of breath, tachypnea, subfebrile temperatures, or a diminished general condition) it would be desirable to perform an RSV test. This is especially true for patients requiring intensive care who need respiratory support,” said Dr. Baldus.
 

Benefits of Vaccination

The results highlight the basic epidemiology of potential cardiovascular complications of RSV infections, but before RSV vaccination became available, wrote Dr. Woodruff and her colleagues.

In 2023, the first RSV vaccine for adults aged 60 years and older was approved. “Here, a door to additional possibilities opens,” said Dr. Baldus. Although there are currently no official vaccination recommendations from Germany’s Standing Vaccination Commission, medical societies of oncologists and pulmonologists recommend vaccination against RSV. “Given the relevance of cardiovascular diseases for the prognosis of patients, but also for the occurrence of an acute cardiovascular event upon detection of RSV, the corresponding recommendation is expected to come,” said Dr. Baldus.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Intermediate valve sizes are at least as safe and effective as the standard sizes now available for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), according to an international randomized trial.

In a head-to-head comparison, the LANDMARK trial looked at valves from the new balloon-expandable Myval^® by Merril Life Sciences and compared them with the balloon-expandable Sapien^® from Edwards Lifesciences and the self-expanding Evolut^® valve from Medtronic.

The new Myval platform offers multiple valves sized at 1.5 mm intervals, while the other two have valves that are generally sized at intervals of 3.0 mm.

The platform with intermediate sizes provided a nonsignificant numerical advantage in both safety and efficacy over its rivals, Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD, from the Department of Cardiology at the University of Galway in Galway, Ireland, reported at the Congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions 2024.

The LANDMARK Trial

The trial enrolled 768 patients at 31 sites in 16 countries. They were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the new platform or to one of the standards to compare the concept of intermediate valves with contemporary standards.

Seven sizes of Myval valves were used in the study, ranging from 20 mm to 29 mm at 1.5 mm increments. Two more sizes, 30.5 mm and 32.0 mm, were not included in this analysis but are being following in a registry.

The study also used Sapien valves sized 20 mm, 23 mm, 26 mm, and 29 mm and Evolut valves sized 26 mm, 29 mm, and 34 mm. There is also a 23 mm Evolut valve available, but it was not selected by any of the participating investigators.

Of the 336 patients given Myval valves, 48% were an intermediate size not available on one of the other platforms.

For the primary composite efficacy and safety endpoint of all-cause mortality, fatal or nonfatal strokes, VARC 3 or 4 bleeding, acute kidney injury, major vascular injury, moderate or greater valve regurgitation, or conduction disturbances requiring a new permanent pacemaker, the difference in absolute risk was slightly lower in the Myval arm, at 24.7% vs 27.0%, but not statistically significant. With that numerical difference favoring the Myval platform, noninferiority was demonstrated at 30 days with a high level of statistical significance, Dr. Serruys reported.

When each endpoint, with the composite primary endpoint, was evaluated separately in a secondary analysis, all-cause mortality and stroke incidence were identical in the two arms. 

Major bleeding and acute kidney injury were nonsignificantly more common in the Myval group, while the incidence of moderate or greater valve regurgitation, placement of a new permanent pacemaker, and major vascular complications were nonsignificantly less common.

Precise Matching

The effective orifice area was consistently higher in the group receiving an intermediate valve relative to a Sapien valve. This was not significant for the 20 mm valve size, but it did reach statistical significance for the rest of the sizes. In contrast, there was no significant difference with the Evolut series.

The data suggest that intermediate sizes “enable precise and appropriate matching of devices to an individual anatomy,” at least relative to Sapien, said Dr. Serruys.

Martin Leon, MD, of Columbia University in New York, called LANDMARK an important step for considering how comparative trials should be conducted in the future.

However, he challenged the idea that this study compared devices for both safety and efficacy. Despite the evidence it provides on device and procedural safety over the short-term, he said few conclusions can be drawn about comparative efficacy after just 30 days. Rather, the true comparative value of the trial will be derived from “rigorous late follow-up,” he said.

Longer Follow-Up to Come

Dr. Serruys acknowledged that the differences seen after 30 days have uncertain relevance to longer-term outcomes. He is planning to conduct a 10-year follow-up that “will unravel whether the documented effective orifice area of the Myval platform will have a beneficial impact on long-term patient prognosis and valve durability,” he said.

Leon agreed that, so far, these data do suggest superior hemodynamic performance with the intermediate sizing relative to valves in the Sapien platform, but the same cannot be said for the Evolut platform, and he pointed out that pooling data from the two platforms for the primary endpoint “makes comparisons difficult.”

And with about half of patients still fitted with the sizes already available, he said a deeper understanding was needed of how “adjustment strategies,” such as oversizing, affect long-term outcomes relative to platforms, such as Myval, with more valve sizes.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Intermediate valve sizes are at least as safe and effective as the standard sizes now available for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), according to an international randomized trial.

In a head-to-head comparison, the LANDMARK trial looked at valves from the new balloon-expandable Myval^® by Merril Life Sciences and compared them with the balloon-expandable Sapien^® from Edwards Lifesciences and the self-expanding Evolut^® valve from Medtronic.

The new Myval platform offers multiple valves sized at 1.5 mm intervals, while the other two have valves that are generally sized at intervals of 3.0 mm.

The platform with intermediate sizes provided a nonsignificant numerical advantage in both safety and efficacy over its rivals, Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD, from the Department of Cardiology at the University of Galway in Galway, Ireland, reported at the Congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions 2024.

The LANDMARK Trial

The trial enrolled 768 patients at 31 sites in 16 countries. They were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the new platform or to one of the standards to compare the concept of intermediate valves with contemporary standards.

Seven sizes of Myval valves were used in the study, ranging from 20 mm to 29 mm at 1.5 mm increments. Two more sizes, 30.5 mm and 32.0 mm, were not included in this analysis but are being following in a registry.

The study also used Sapien valves sized 20 mm, 23 mm, 26 mm, and 29 mm and Evolut valves sized 26 mm, 29 mm, and 34 mm. There is also a 23 mm Evolut valve available, but it was not selected by any of the participating investigators.

Of the 336 patients given Myval valves, 48% were an intermediate size not available on one of the other platforms.

For the primary composite efficacy and safety endpoint of all-cause mortality, fatal or nonfatal strokes, VARC 3 or 4 bleeding, acute kidney injury, major vascular injury, moderate or greater valve regurgitation, or conduction disturbances requiring a new permanent pacemaker, the difference in absolute risk was slightly lower in the Myval arm, at 24.7% vs 27.0%, but not statistically significant. With that numerical difference favoring the Myval platform, noninferiority was demonstrated at 30 days with a high level of statistical significance, Dr. Serruys reported.

When each endpoint, with the composite primary endpoint, was evaluated separately in a secondary analysis, all-cause mortality and stroke incidence were identical in the two arms. 

Major bleeding and acute kidney injury were nonsignificantly more common in the Myval group, while the incidence of moderate or greater valve regurgitation, placement of a new permanent pacemaker, and major vascular complications were nonsignificantly less common.

Precise Matching

The effective orifice area was consistently higher in the group receiving an intermediate valve relative to a Sapien valve. This was not significant for the 20 mm valve size, but it did reach statistical significance for the rest of the sizes. In contrast, there was no significant difference with the Evolut series.

The data suggest that intermediate sizes “enable precise and appropriate matching of devices to an individual anatomy,” at least relative to Sapien, said Dr. Serruys.

Martin Leon, MD, of Columbia University in New York, called LANDMARK an important step for considering how comparative trials should be conducted in the future.

However, he challenged the idea that this study compared devices for both safety and efficacy. Despite the evidence it provides on device and procedural safety over the short-term, he said few conclusions can be drawn about comparative efficacy after just 30 days. Rather, the true comparative value of the trial will be derived from “rigorous late follow-up,” he said.

Longer Follow-Up to Come

Dr. Serruys acknowledged that the differences seen after 30 days have uncertain relevance to longer-term outcomes. He is planning to conduct a 10-year follow-up that “will unravel whether the documented effective orifice area of the Myval platform will have a beneficial impact on long-term patient prognosis and valve durability,” he said.

Leon agreed that, so far, these data do suggest superior hemodynamic performance with the intermediate sizing relative to valves in the Sapien platform, but the same cannot be said for the Evolut platform, and he pointed out that pooling data from the two platforms for the primary endpoint “makes comparisons difficult.”

And with about half of patients still fitted with the sizes already available, he said a deeper understanding was needed of how “adjustment strategies,” such as oversizing, affect long-term outcomes relative to platforms, such as Myval, with more valve sizes.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Intermediate valve sizes are at least as safe and effective as the standard sizes now available for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), according to an international randomized trial.

In a head-to-head comparison, the LANDMARK trial looked at valves from the new balloon-expandable Myval^® by Merril Life Sciences and compared them with the balloon-expandable Sapien^® from Edwards Lifesciences and the self-expanding Evolut^® valve from Medtronic.

The new Myval platform offers multiple valves sized at 1.5 mm intervals, while the other two have valves that are generally sized at intervals of 3.0 mm.

The platform with intermediate sizes provided a nonsignificant numerical advantage in both safety and efficacy over its rivals, Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD, from the Department of Cardiology at the University of Galway in Galway, Ireland, reported at the Congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions 2024.

The LANDMARK Trial

The trial enrolled 768 patients at 31 sites in 16 countries. They were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the new platform or to one of the standards to compare the concept of intermediate valves with contemporary standards.

Seven sizes of Myval valves were used in the study, ranging from 20 mm to 29 mm at 1.5 mm increments. Two more sizes, 30.5 mm and 32.0 mm, were not included in this analysis but are being following in a registry.

The study also used Sapien valves sized 20 mm, 23 mm, 26 mm, and 29 mm and Evolut valves sized 26 mm, 29 mm, and 34 mm. There is also a 23 mm Evolut valve available, but it was not selected by any of the participating investigators.

Of the 336 patients given Myval valves, 48% were an intermediate size not available on one of the other platforms.

For the primary composite efficacy and safety endpoint of all-cause mortality, fatal or nonfatal strokes, VARC 3 or 4 bleeding, acute kidney injury, major vascular injury, moderate or greater valve regurgitation, or conduction disturbances requiring a new permanent pacemaker, the difference in absolute risk was slightly lower in the Myval arm, at 24.7% vs 27.0%, but not statistically significant. With that numerical difference favoring the Myval platform, noninferiority was demonstrated at 30 days with a high level of statistical significance, Dr. Serruys reported.

When each endpoint, with the composite primary endpoint, was evaluated separately in a secondary analysis, all-cause mortality and stroke incidence were identical in the two arms. 

Major bleeding and acute kidney injury were nonsignificantly more common in the Myval group, while the incidence of moderate or greater valve regurgitation, placement of a new permanent pacemaker, and major vascular complications were nonsignificantly less common.

Precise Matching

The effective orifice area was consistently higher in the group receiving an intermediate valve relative to a Sapien valve. This was not significant for the 20 mm valve size, but it did reach statistical significance for the rest of the sizes. In contrast, there was no significant difference with the Evolut series.

The data suggest that intermediate sizes “enable precise and appropriate matching of devices to an individual anatomy,” at least relative to Sapien, said Dr. Serruys.

Martin Leon, MD, of Columbia University in New York, called LANDMARK an important step for considering how comparative trials should be conducted in the future.

However, he challenged the idea that this study compared devices for both safety and efficacy. Despite the evidence it provides on device and procedural safety over the short-term, he said few conclusions can be drawn about comparative efficacy after just 30 days. Rather, the true comparative value of the trial will be derived from “rigorous late follow-up,” he said.

Longer Follow-Up to Come

Dr. Serruys acknowledged that the differences seen after 30 days have uncertain relevance to longer-term outcomes. He is planning to conduct a 10-year follow-up that “will unravel whether the documented effective orifice area of the Myval platform will have a beneficial impact on long-term patient prognosis and valve durability,” he said.

Leon agreed that, so far, these data do suggest superior hemodynamic performance with the intermediate sizing relative to valves in the Sapien platform, but the same cannot be said for the Evolut platform, and he pointed out that pooling data from the two platforms for the primary endpoint “makes comparisons difficult.”

And with about half of patients still fitted with the sizes already available, he said a deeper understanding was needed of how “adjustment strategies,” such as oversizing, affect long-term outcomes relative to platforms, such as Myval, with more valve sizes.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — New findings challenge the practice of rapidly lowering blood pressure (BP) in acute ischemic stroke to allow for speedy thrombolysis.

The observational cluster study showed that patients treated in hospitals that followed the guideline-recommended practice of rapidly reducing BP did no better — and actually showed a trend toward worse outcomes — than those treated in hospitals that did not lower BP, even though this meant fewer patient received thrombolysis. 

“We found insufficient evidence to recommend active blood pressure lowering in patients with ischemic stroke who have blood pressure levels exceeding the guidelines but are otherwise eligible for thrombolytic therapy,” said senior study author Nyika D. Kruyt, MD, PhD, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands. 

“Our results suggest that if the blood pressure is too high for thrombolysis, then it is best to wait and only treat with thrombolysis if the blood pressure drops spontaneously,” Dr. Kruyt said.

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) annual meeting and published online in The Lancet Neurology. 
 

Guidelines Without Evidence?

Owing to concerns about high BP increasing the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage after thrombolysis, the original trials evaluating thrombolysis in stroke set an arbitrary threshold of 185/110 mm Hg, which has been incorporated into stroke guidelines. These trials cautioned against lowering BP rapidly, which is not included in guidelines. 

Most stroke centers therefore tend to rapidly lower BP in patients who have values greater than 185/110 mm Hg and who are otherwise eligible for thrombolysis, investigators noted. Because thrombolysis is more effective the earlier it is administered, there is some urgency to reduce the BP quickly when patients first arrive at the hospital. 

“But there has never been any evidence for the lowering of blood pressure with IV [intravenous] antihypertensives before thrombolysis, and some centers have never adopted this approach because of concerns that a rapid decline in blood pressure may reduce perfusion of the brain at a time when there is already ischemia present,” Dr. Kruyt noted. 

However, if BP is lowered quickly, there is a greater chance that patients will not be able to receive thrombolysis because the 4.5-hour time limit could be exceeded.

For the prospective, observational TRUTH study, researchers compared outcomes in 853 patients treated at 27 stroke centers in the Netherlands with an active BP-lowering strategy vs 199 patients treated at 10 hospitals with no such strategy. 

Baseline characteristics of participants in the two groups were similar. 

Results showed a strong trend toward worse outcomes in participants whose BP was lowered, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a shift toward a worse 90-day functional outcome on the modified Rankin Scale of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.96-1.68). 

This was despite the fact that many more patients whose BP was reduced received thrombolysis (94% vs 52% of those with no BP lowering) and had shorter times to treatment, with average door-to-needle times of 35 minutes (vs 47 minutes among those with no BP lowering). 

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 5% of the active BP-lowering group versus 3% of those who did not have their BP lowered (aOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.62-2.62).
 

Reconsider Guidelines?

These results are consistent with those from the INTERACT4 trial, which was also presented at the ESOC 2024 meeting. That trial showed a harmful effect of lowering BP in the ambulance in patients with acute ischemic stroke, but a beneficial effect in patients with hemorrhagic stroke.

“I think the guidelines need to be reconsidered after these studies and we should refrain from active blood pressure–lowering in patients with acute ischemic stroke,” Dr. Kruyt said. 

But he acknowledged that not rapidly lowering BP will mean fewer patients will be able to receive thrombolysis within the 4.5-hour treatment window.

Dr. Kruyt estimated that the combination of being eligible for thrombolysis, with the only exclusion criterion being BP greater than 185/110 mm Hg, applies to about 10%-15% of patients. 

“If we have a watch-and-wait policy, then about half of those patients will still get treated with thrombolysis within in the 4.5-hour limit but later than if blood pressure was reduced with IV antihypertensives,” he added. 

Dr. Kruyt noted that there has never been a randomized trial on the practice of BP lowering in order to be able to administer thrombolysis. 

“The 185/110 mm Hg blood pressure level is an arbitrary threshold that was chosen for the original thrombolysis stroke trials,” he said. “I believe we need trials to investigate whether we can give thrombolysis safely to patients with higher blood pressure levels than this, without needing to rapidly reduce the pressure.”
 

Caution Advised

Discussing the TRUTH study at the ESOC meeting, Guillaume Turc, MD, professor of neurology at Sainte-Anne Hospital, Paris, said he thought the findings were “very thought provoking.”

Simona Sacco, MD, professor of neurology at the University of L’Aquila, Italy, said the result was surprising, but she advised caution in acting on this finding. 

“I don’t think this study can change practice or guidelines as it is not a randomized trial. Yes, it can generate a hypothesis, but we need more research before changing clinical practice,” she said. 

In an accompanying editorial, Verónica Olavarría, MD, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile, also suggested the trial should be interpreted cautiously because there was “insufficient evidence for a definitive conclusion.”

But Dr. Kruyt noted that even though the TRUTH study was not a randomized trial, the results are in line with those of recent randomized trials such as INTERACT4.

He added that the ENCHANTED trial also showed no benefit of intensive BP management immediately after thrombolysis in mild to moderate stroke and even suggested harm in severe stroke. And other trials (OPTIMAL-BP and ENCHANTED2/MT) have shown worse outcomes with BP lowering in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing thrombectomy. 

“All these studies are showing similar signals throughout the whole timeline in acute ischemic stroke. The results are very much in line with each other. I think this strengthens our findings,” Dr. Kruyt said. 

“With this data, I think the guidelines should be revised, and until randomized data become available showing that reducing blood pressure in acute ischemic stroke patients in order for them to receive early thrombolysis is beneficial, then we should refrain from doing so,” he added.

INTERACT4 investigator Craig Anderson, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, agreed. 

“The TRUTH study gives the same message as INTERACT4. They are completely in line with each other, both suggesting harm with blood pressure lowering in acute ischemic stroke. These two together are going to rattle the cage around blood pressure control in acute ischemic stroke patients,” Dr. Anderson said. 

The TRUTH study was funded by a grant from Fonds NutsOhra. Dr. Kruyt reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Olavarría reported receiving a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim for the RECCA registry and honoraria from Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — New findings challenge the practice of rapidly lowering blood pressure (BP) in acute ischemic stroke to allow for speedy thrombolysis.

The observational cluster study showed that patients treated in hospitals that followed the guideline-recommended practice of rapidly reducing BP did no better — and actually showed a trend toward worse outcomes — than those treated in hospitals that did not lower BP, even though this meant fewer patient received thrombolysis. 

“We found insufficient evidence to recommend active blood pressure lowering in patients with ischemic stroke who have blood pressure levels exceeding the guidelines but are otherwise eligible for thrombolytic therapy,” said senior study author Nyika D. Kruyt, MD, PhD, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands. 

“Our results suggest that if the blood pressure is too high for thrombolysis, then it is best to wait and only treat with thrombolysis if the blood pressure drops spontaneously,” Dr. Kruyt said.

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) annual meeting and published online in The Lancet Neurology. 
 

Guidelines Without Evidence?

Owing to concerns about high BP increasing the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage after thrombolysis, the original trials evaluating thrombolysis in stroke set an arbitrary threshold of 185/110 mm Hg, which has been incorporated into stroke guidelines. These trials cautioned against lowering BP rapidly, which is not included in guidelines. 

Most stroke centers therefore tend to rapidly lower BP in patients who have values greater than 185/110 mm Hg and who are otherwise eligible for thrombolysis, investigators noted. Because thrombolysis is more effective the earlier it is administered, there is some urgency to reduce the BP quickly when patients first arrive at the hospital. 

“But there has never been any evidence for the lowering of blood pressure with IV [intravenous] antihypertensives before thrombolysis, and some centers have never adopted this approach because of concerns that a rapid decline in blood pressure may reduce perfusion of the brain at a time when there is already ischemia present,” Dr. Kruyt noted. 

However, if BP is lowered quickly, there is a greater chance that patients will not be able to receive thrombolysis because the 4.5-hour time limit could be exceeded.

For the prospective, observational TRUTH study, researchers compared outcomes in 853 patients treated at 27 stroke centers in the Netherlands with an active BP-lowering strategy vs 199 patients treated at 10 hospitals with no such strategy. 

Baseline characteristics of participants in the two groups were similar. 

Results showed a strong trend toward worse outcomes in participants whose BP was lowered, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a shift toward a worse 90-day functional outcome on the modified Rankin Scale of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.96-1.68). 

This was despite the fact that many more patients whose BP was reduced received thrombolysis (94% vs 52% of those with no BP lowering) and had shorter times to treatment, with average door-to-needle times of 35 minutes (vs 47 minutes among those with no BP lowering). 

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 5% of the active BP-lowering group versus 3% of those who did not have their BP lowered (aOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.62-2.62).
 

Reconsider Guidelines?

These results are consistent with those from the INTERACT4 trial, which was also presented at the ESOC 2024 meeting. That trial showed a harmful effect of lowering BP in the ambulance in patients with acute ischemic stroke, but a beneficial effect in patients with hemorrhagic stroke.

“I think the guidelines need to be reconsidered after these studies and we should refrain from active blood pressure–lowering in patients with acute ischemic stroke,” Dr. Kruyt said. 

But he acknowledged that not rapidly lowering BP will mean fewer patients will be able to receive thrombolysis within the 4.5-hour treatment window.

Dr. Kruyt estimated that the combination of being eligible for thrombolysis, with the only exclusion criterion being BP greater than 185/110 mm Hg, applies to about 10%-15% of patients. 

“If we have a watch-and-wait policy, then about half of those patients will still get treated with thrombolysis within in the 4.5-hour limit but later than if blood pressure was reduced with IV antihypertensives,” he added. 

Dr. Kruyt noted that there has never been a randomized trial on the practice of BP lowering in order to be able to administer thrombolysis. 

“The 185/110 mm Hg blood pressure level is an arbitrary threshold that was chosen for the original thrombolysis stroke trials,” he said. “I believe we need trials to investigate whether we can give thrombolysis safely to patients with higher blood pressure levels than this, without needing to rapidly reduce the pressure.”
 

Caution Advised

Discussing the TRUTH study at the ESOC meeting, Guillaume Turc, MD, professor of neurology at Sainte-Anne Hospital, Paris, said he thought the findings were “very thought provoking.”

Simona Sacco, MD, professor of neurology at the University of L’Aquila, Italy, said the result was surprising, but she advised caution in acting on this finding. 

“I don’t think this study can change practice or guidelines as it is not a randomized trial. Yes, it can generate a hypothesis, but we need more research before changing clinical practice,” she said. 

In an accompanying editorial, Verónica Olavarría, MD, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile, also suggested the trial should be interpreted cautiously because there was “insufficient evidence for a definitive conclusion.”

But Dr. Kruyt noted that even though the TRUTH study was not a randomized trial, the results are in line with those of recent randomized trials such as INTERACT4.

He added that the ENCHANTED trial also showed no benefit of intensive BP management immediately after thrombolysis in mild to moderate stroke and even suggested harm in severe stroke. And other trials (OPTIMAL-BP and ENCHANTED2/MT) have shown worse outcomes with BP lowering in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing thrombectomy. 

“All these studies are showing similar signals throughout the whole timeline in acute ischemic stroke. The results are very much in line with each other. I think this strengthens our findings,” Dr. Kruyt said. 

“With this data, I think the guidelines should be revised, and until randomized data become available showing that reducing blood pressure in acute ischemic stroke patients in order for them to receive early thrombolysis is beneficial, then we should refrain from doing so,” he added.

INTERACT4 investigator Craig Anderson, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, agreed. 

“The TRUTH study gives the same message as INTERACT4. They are completely in line with each other, both suggesting harm with blood pressure lowering in acute ischemic stroke. These two together are going to rattle the cage around blood pressure control in acute ischemic stroke patients,” Dr. Anderson said. 

The TRUTH study was funded by a grant from Fonds NutsOhra. Dr. Kruyt reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Olavarría reported receiving a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim for the RECCA registry and honoraria from Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — New findings challenge the practice of rapidly lowering blood pressure (BP) in acute ischemic stroke to allow for speedy thrombolysis.

The observational cluster study showed that patients treated in hospitals that followed the guideline-recommended practice of rapidly reducing BP did no better — and actually showed a trend toward worse outcomes — than those treated in hospitals that did not lower BP, even though this meant fewer patient received thrombolysis. 

“We found insufficient evidence to recommend active blood pressure lowering in patients with ischemic stroke who have blood pressure levels exceeding the guidelines but are otherwise eligible for thrombolytic therapy,” said senior study author Nyika D. Kruyt, MD, PhD, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands. 

“Our results suggest that if the blood pressure is too high for thrombolysis, then it is best to wait and only treat with thrombolysis if the blood pressure drops spontaneously,” Dr. Kruyt said.

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) annual meeting and published online in The Lancet Neurology. 
 

Guidelines Without Evidence?

Owing to concerns about high BP increasing the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage after thrombolysis, the original trials evaluating thrombolysis in stroke set an arbitrary threshold of 185/110 mm Hg, which has been incorporated into stroke guidelines. These trials cautioned against lowering BP rapidly, which is not included in guidelines. 

Most stroke centers therefore tend to rapidly lower BP in patients who have values greater than 185/110 mm Hg and who are otherwise eligible for thrombolysis, investigators noted. Because thrombolysis is more effective the earlier it is administered, there is some urgency to reduce the BP quickly when patients first arrive at the hospital. 

“But there has never been any evidence for the lowering of blood pressure with IV [intravenous] antihypertensives before thrombolysis, and some centers have never adopted this approach because of concerns that a rapid decline in blood pressure may reduce perfusion of the brain at a time when there is already ischemia present,” Dr. Kruyt noted. 

However, if BP is lowered quickly, there is a greater chance that patients will not be able to receive thrombolysis because the 4.5-hour time limit could be exceeded.

For the prospective, observational TRUTH study, researchers compared outcomes in 853 patients treated at 27 stroke centers in the Netherlands with an active BP-lowering strategy vs 199 patients treated at 10 hospitals with no such strategy. 

Baseline characteristics of participants in the two groups were similar. 

Results showed a strong trend toward worse outcomes in participants whose BP was lowered, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a shift toward a worse 90-day functional outcome on the modified Rankin Scale of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.96-1.68). 

This was despite the fact that many more patients whose BP was reduced received thrombolysis (94% vs 52% of those with no BP lowering) and had shorter times to treatment, with average door-to-needle times of 35 minutes (vs 47 minutes among those with no BP lowering). 

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 5% of the active BP-lowering group versus 3% of those who did not have their BP lowered (aOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.62-2.62).
 

Reconsider Guidelines?

These results are consistent with those from the INTERACT4 trial, which was also presented at the ESOC 2024 meeting. That trial showed a harmful effect of lowering BP in the ambulance in patients with acute ischemic stroke, but a beneficial effect in patients with hemorrhagic stroke.

“I think the guidelines need to be reconsidered after these studies and we should refrain from active blood pressure–lowering in patients with acute ischemic stroke,” Dr. Kruyt said. 

But he acknowledged that not rapidly lowering BP will mean fewer patients will be able to receive thrombolysis within the 4.5-hour treatment window.

Dr. Kruyt estimated that the combination of being eligible for thrombolysis, with the only exclusion criterion being BP greater than 185/110 mm Hg, applies to about 10%-15% of patients. 

“If we have a watch-and-wait policy, then about half of those patients will still get treated with thrombolysis within in the 4.5-hour limit but later than if blood pressure was reduced with IV antihypertensives,” he added. 

Dr. Kruyt noted that there has never been a randomized trial on the practice of BP lowering in order to be able to administer thrombolysis. 

“The 185/110 mm Hg blood pressure level is an arbitrary threshold that was chosen for the original thrombolysis stroke trials,” he said. “I believe we need trials to investigate whether we can give thrombolysis safely to patients with higher blood pressure levels than this, without needing to rapidly reduce the pressure.”
 

Caution Advised

Discussing the TRUTH study at the ESOC meeting, Guillaume Turc, MD, professor of neurology at Sainte-Anne Hospital, Paris, said he thought the findings were “very thought provoking.”

Simona Sacco, MD, professor of neurology at the University of L’Aquila, Italy, said the result was surprising, but she advised caution in acting on this finding. 

“I don’t think this study can change practice or guidelines as it is not a randomized trial. Yes, it can generate a hypothesis, but we need more research before changing clinical practice,” she said. 

In an accompanying editorial, Verónica Olavarría, MD, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile, also suggested the trial should be interpreted cautiously because there was “insufficient evidence for a definitive conclusion.”

But Dr. Kruyt noted that even though the TRUTH study was not a randomized trial, the results are in line with those of recent randomized trials such as INTERACT4.

He added that the ENCHANTED trial also showed no benefit of intensive BP management immediately after thrombolysis in mild to moderate stroke and even suggested harm in severe stroke. And other trials (OPTIMAL-BP and ENCHANTED2/MT) have shown worse outcomes with BP lowering in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing thrombectomy. 

“All these studies are showing similar signals throughout the whole timeline in acute ischemic stroke. The results are very much in line with each other. I think this strengthens our findings,” Dr. Kruyt said. 

“With this data, I think the guidelines should be revised, and until randomized data become available showing that reducing blood pressure in acute ischemic stroke patients in order for them to receive early thrombolysis is beneficial, then we should refrain from doing so,” he added.

INTERACT4 investigator Craig Anderson, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, agreed. 

“The TRUTH study gives the same message as INTERACT4. They are completely in line with each other, both suggesting harm with blood pressure lowering in acute ischemic stroke. These two together are going to rattle the cage around blood pressure control in acute ischemic stroke patients,” Dr. Anderson said. 

The TRUTH study was funded by a grant from Fonds NutsOhra. Dr. Kruyt reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Olavarría reported receiving a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim for the RECCA registry and honoraria from Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Minor ischemic stroke patients with intracranial occlusion should not be treated with IV thrombolysis, a new trial has concluded.

Results from the randomized controlled trial TEMPO-2 showed no benefit from treatment with tenecteplase following ischemic stroke. In addition, investigators found a small increased risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and more deaths in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group.

The research suggests that although it makes sense to open up vessels in patients with minor stroke, they didn’t do better with thrombolysis.

“This is not the result we were hoping for, but I think the question of whether to treat these minor stroke patients who are not disabled has now been answered,” said lead investigator Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

“After these results, I think we should scan these patients, admit them, give them dual antiplatelet therapy and IV fluids, and watch them like a hawk. If they deteriorate, we can intervene at that point.”

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024 annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Very Little Data

Up to half of patients with ischemic stroke initially present with minimal symptoms, which are not disabling, investigators noted. Despite having low scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) that typically range from 0 to 5, a third of these patients are dead or disabled at 90-day follow-up if thrombolysis is withheld.

Patients with minor deficits and evidence of an intracranial occlusion are a subpopulation at a high risk for early neurological deterioration, which most often occurs within the first 24 hours after presentation.

However, many physicians have concerns about giving thrombolysis to these patients because of the potential harm from bleeding in the absence of major deficits, and most trials of thrombolysis have excluded patients with minor stroke. That leaves very little high-quality data to guide practice for these patients.

Two previous studies have compared alteplase with antiplatelet agents in minor stroke, but no trial has specifically looked at the subset of patients with minor stroke who have intracranial occlusion. The TEMPO-2 trial was conducted to evaluate the use of tenecteplase in this patient population.

The multicenter, parallel group, open-label study was conducted at 48 hospitals in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The trial included patients with minor acute ischemic stroke (NIHSS score of 0-5) and intracranial occlusion or focal perfusion abnormality who were within 12 hours from stroke onset.

Patients received IV tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) or non-thrombolytic standard of care (control). Most patients in the control group were treated with dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel (57%) or aspirin monotherapy (23%).

The trial was stopped early for futility after 886 patients had been enrolled. The median NIHSS score was 2.

The primary outcome — a return to baseline functioning on the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days — occurred in 75% of the control group and in 72% of the tenecteplase group (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; P = .29).

Although there were significantly more patients with early recanalization and an NIHSS score of 0 at day 5 or discharge after tenecteplase treatment, this did not translate into improved functional outcomes at 90 days.

More patients died in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group (5% vs 1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.8; P = .0085).

There were eight (2%) symptomatic ICHs in the tenecteplase group versus two (< 1%) in the control group (RR, 4.2; P = .059).

The ICH rate was not different in patients treated after 4.5 hours versus before 4.5 hours. The subgroup of patients treated at 4.5-12.0 hours showed weaker evidence of better outcomes with thrombolysis than those treated before 4.5 hours, suggesting that the 12-hour window for TEMPO-2 did not explain the absence of benefit seen with tenecteplase.

Patients in the control group did better than expected, which may have been the result of chance, patient selection, or greater use of dual antiplatelet therapy, researchers noted.

Despite higher recanalization rates in the tenecteplase group (48% vs 22%), there was no change in the rate of stroke progression between groups, with an 8% rate of progression seen overall in the study.

Noting that previous studies have shown that patients with minor stroke and intracranial occlusion are at a risk for both progression and disability, the authors suggested that good supportive care may have improved outcomes in both groups.
 

More Trials Needed

Commenting on the study at the ESOC meeting, Urs Fischer, MD, Basel University Hospital, Switzerland, said “What should we do for patients with mild stroke with vessel occlusion has been a huge unanswered question. The TEMPO-2 study did not show a benefit with thrombolysis, and there was a tendency toward an increased risk of ICH. This is an important finding.”

In an accompanying editorial, Simona Sacco, MD, University of L’Aquila, Italy, and Guillaume Turc, MD, Université Paris Cité, France, noted that different minor ischemic stroke populations pose different therapeutic challenges.

Observational data suggest a benefit of endovascular treatment for minor stroke with large vessel occlusion, and dedicated randomized controlled trials in this group are ongoing, they added.

Early dual antiplatelet treatment is now the recommended treatment of minor stroke and should therefore be the active comparator for non-cardioembolic strokes in future trials.

While TEMPO-2 did not prove that tenecteplase is better than the standard of care for the acute treatment of minor stroke, Dr. Sacco and Dr. Turc said the study confirms that tenecteplase is associated with a high rate of recanalization.

“Fast recanalization with intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular treatment, proper patient selection, and combination with dual antiplatelet treatment or early initiation of anticoagulants may translate into tangible clinical benefits for patients with minor ischemic stroke, which should be tested in future studies,” they wrote.

This trial was funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the British Heart Foundation. Boehringer Ingelheim provided tenecteplase for the study. Dr. Coutts reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sacco reported receiving grants for research from Novartis and Uriach; consulting fees from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; payment for lectures from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending conferences from Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Lundbeck, and Pfizer. She is president elect of the European Stroke Organization and editor-in-chief of Cephalalgia. Dr. Turc reported payment for lectures from Guerbet France, is a member of the scientific advisory board of AI-Stroke, and is the Secretary General of the European Stroke Organisation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Minor ischemic stroke patients with intracranial occlusion should not be treated with IV thrombolysis, a new trial has concluded.

Results from the randomized controlled trial TEMPO-2 showed no benefit from treatment with tenecteplase following ischemic stroke. In addition, investigators found a small increased risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and more deaths in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group.

The research suggests that although it makes sense to open up vessels in patients with minor stroke, they didn’t do better with thrombolysis.

“This is not the result we were hoping for, but I think the question of whether to treat these minor stroke patients who are not disabled has now been answered,” said lead investigator Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

“After these results, I think we should scan these patients, admit them, give them dual antiplatelet therapy and IV fluids, and watch them like a hawk. If they deteriorate, we can intervene at that point.”

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024 annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Very Little Data

Up to half of patients with ischemic stroke initially present with minimal symptoms, which are not disabling, investigators noted. Despite having low scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) that typically range from 0 to 5, a third of these patients are dead or disabled at 90-day follow-up if thrombolysis is withheld.

Patients with minor deficits and evidence of an intracranial occlusion are a subpopulation at a high risk for early neurological deterioration, which most often occurs within the first 24 hours after presentation.

However, many physicians have concerns about giving thrombolysis to these patients because of the potential harm from bleeding in the absence of major deficits, and most trials of thrombolysis have excluded patients with minor stroke. That leaves very little high-quality data to guide practice for these patients.

Two previous studies have compared alteplase with antiplatelet agents in minor stroke, but no trial has specifically looked at the subset of patients with minor stroke who have intracranial occlusion. The TEMPO-2 trial was conducted to evaluate the use of tenecteplase in this patient population.

The multicenter, parallel group, open-label study was conducted at 48 hospitals in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The trial included patients with minor acute ischemic stroke (NIHSS score of 0-5) and intracranial occlusion or focal perfusion abnormality who were within 12 hours from stroke onset.

Patients received IV tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) or non-thrombolytic standard of care (control). Most patients in the control group were treated with dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel (57%) or aspirin monotherapy (23%).

The trial was stopped early for futility after 886 patients had been enrolled. The median NIHSS score was 2.

The primary outcome — a return to baseline functioning on the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days — occurred in 75% of the control group and in 72% of the tenecteplase group (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; P = .29).

Although there were significantly more patients with early recanalization and an NIHSS score of 0 at day 5 or discharge after tenecteplase treatment, this did not translate into improved functional outcomes at 90 days.

More patients died in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group (5% vs 1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.8; P = .0085).

There were eight (2%) symptomatic ICHs in the tenecteplase group versus two (< 1%) in the control group (RR, 4.2; P = .059).

The ICH rate was not different in patients treated after 4.5 hours versus before 4.5 hours. The subgroup of patients treated at 4.5-12.0 hours showed weaker evidence of better outcomes with thrombolysis than those treated before 4.5 hours, suggesting that the 12-hour window for TEMPO-2 did not explain the absence of benefit seen with tenecteplase.

Patients in the control group did better than expected, which may have been the result of chance, patient selection, or greater use of dual antiplatelet therapy, researchers noted.

Despite higher recanalization rates in the tenecteplase group (48% vs 22%), there was no change in the rate of stroke progression between groups, with an 8% rate of progression seen overall in the study.

Noting that previous studies have shown that patients with minor stroke and intracranial occlusion are at a risk for both progression and disability, the authors suggested that good supportive care may have improved outcomes in both groups.
 

More Trials Needed

Commenting on the study at the ESOC meeting, Urs Fischer, MD, Basel University Hospital, Switzerland, said “What should we do for patients with mild stroke with vessel occlusion has been a huge unanswered question. The TEMPO-2 study did not show a benefit with thrombolysis, and there was a tendency toward an increased risk of ICH. This is an important finding.”

In an accompanying editorial, Simona Sacco, MD, University of L’Aquila, Italy, and Guillaume Turc, MD, Université Paris Cité, France, noted that different minor ischemic stroke populations pose different therapeutic challenges.

Observational data suggest a benefit of endovascular treatment for minor stroke with large vessel occlusion, and dedicated randomized controlled trials in this group are ongoing, they added.

Early dual antiplatelet treatment is now the recommended treatment of minor stroke and should therefore be the active comparator for non-cardioembolic strokes in future trials.

While TEMPO-2 did not prove that tenecteplase is better than the standard of care for the acute treatment of minor stroke, Dr. Sacco and Dr. Turc said the study confirms that tenecteplase is associated with a high rate of recanalization.

“Fast recanalization with intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular treatment, proper patient selection, and combination with dual antiplatelet treatment or early initiation of anticoagulants may translate into tangible clinical benefits for patients with minor ischemic stroke, which should be tested in future studies,” they wrote.

This trial was funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the British Heart Foundation. Boehringer Ingelheim provided tenecteplase for the study. Dr. Coutts reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sacco reported receiving grants for research from Novartis and Uriach; consulting fees from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; payment for lectures from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending conferences from Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Lundbeck, and Pfizer. She is president elect of the European Stroke Organization and editor-in-chief of Cephalalgia. Dr. Turc reported payment for lectures from Guerbet France, is a member of the scientific advisory board of AI-Stroke, and is the Secretary General of the European Stroke Organisation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Minor ischemic stroke patients with intracranial occlusion should not be treated with IV thrombolysis, a new trial has concluded.

Results from the randomized controlled trial TEMPO-2 showed no benefit from treatment with tenecteplase following ischemic stroke. In addition, investigators found a small increased risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and more deaths in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group.

The research suggests that although it makes sense to open up vessels in patients with minor stroke, they didn’t do better with thrombolysis.

“This is not the result we were hoping for, but I think the question of whether to treat these minor stroke patients who are not disabled has now been answered,” said lead investigator Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

“After these results, I think we should scan these patients, admit them, give them dual antiplatelet therapy and IV fluids, and watch them like a hawk. If they deteriorate, we can intervene at that point.”

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024 annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Very Little Data

Up to half of patients with ischemic stroke initially present with minimal symptoms, which are not disabling, investigators noted. Despite having low scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) that typically range from 0 to 5, a third of these patients are dead or disabled at 90-day follow-up if thrombolysis is withheld.

Patients with minor deficits and evidence of an intracranial occlusion are a subpopulation at a high risk for early neurological deterioration, which most often occurs within the first 24 hours after presentation.

However, many physicians have concerns about giving thrombolysis to these patients because of the potential harm from bleeding in the absence of major deficits, and most trials of thrombolysis have excluded patients with minor stroke. That leaves very little high-quality data to guide practice for these patients.

Two previous studies have compared alteplase with antiplatelet agents in minor stroke, but no trial has specifically looked at the subset of patients with minor stroke who have intracranial occlusion. The TEMPO-2 trial was conducted to evaluate the use of tenecteplase in this patient population.

The multicenter, parallel group, open-label study was conducted at 48 hospitals in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The trial included patients with minor acute ischemic stroke (NIHSS score of 0-5) and intracranial occlusion or focal perfusion abnormality who were within 12 hours from stroke onset.

Patients received IV tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) or non-thrombolytic standard of care (control). Most patients in the control group were treated with dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel (57%) or aspirin monotherapy (23%).

The trial was stopped early for futility after 886 patients had been enrolled. The median NIHSS score was 2.

The primary outcome — a return to baseline functioning on the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days — occurred in 75% of the control group and in 72% of the tenecteplase group (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; P = .29).

Although there were significantly more patients with early recanalization and an NIHSS score of 0 at day 5 or discharge after tenecteplase treatment, this did not translate into improved functional outcomes at 90 days.

More patients died in the tenecteplase group compared with the control group (5% vs 1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.8; P = .0085).

There were eight (2%) symptomatic ICHs in the tenecteplase group versus two (< 1%) in the control group (RR, 4.2; P = .059).

The ICH rate was not different in patients treated after 4.5 hours versus before 4.5 hours. The subgroup of patients treated at 4.5-12.0 hours showed weaker evidence of better outcomes with thrombolysis than those treated before 4.5 hours, suggesting that the 12-hour window for TEMPO-2 did not explain the absence of benefit seen with tenecteplase.

Patients in the control group did better than expected, which may have been the result of chance, patient selection, or greater use of dual antiplatelet therapy, researchers noted.

Despite higher recanalization rates in the tenecteplase group (48% vs 22%), there was no change in the rate of stroke progression between groups, with an 8% rate of progression seen overall in the study.

Noting that previous studies have shown that patients with minor stroke and intracranial occlusion are at a risk for both progression and disability, the authors suggested that good supportive care may have improved outcomes in both groups.
 

More Trials Needed

Commenting on the study at the ESOC meeting, Urs Fischer, MD, Basel University Hospital, Switzerland, said “What should we do for patients with mild stroke with vessel occlusion has been a huge unanswered question. The TEMPO-2 study did not show a benefit with thrombolysis, and there was a tendency toward an increased risk of ICH. This is an important finding.”

In an accompanying editorial, Simona Sacco, MD, University of L’Aquila, Italy, and Guillaume Turc, MD, Université Paris Cité, France, noted that different minor ischemic stroke populations pose different therapeutic challenges.

Observational data suggest a benefit of endovascular treatment for minor stroke with large vessel occlusion, and dedicated randomized controlled trials in this group are ongoing, they added.

Early dual antiplatelet treatment is now the recommended treatment of minor stroke and should therefore be the active comparator for non-cardioembolic strokes in future trials.

While TEMPO-2 did not prove that tenecteplase is better than the standard of care for the acute treatment of minor stroke, Dr. Sacco and Dr. Turc said the study confirms that tenecteplase is associated with a high rate of recanalization.

“Fast recanalization with intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular treatment, proper patient selection, and combination with dual antiplatelet treatment or early initiation of anticoagulants may translate into tangible clinical benefits for patients with minor ischemic stroke, which should be tested in future studies,” they wrote.

This trial was funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the British Heart Foundation. Boehringer Ingelheim provided tenecteplase for the study. Dr. Coutts reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sacco reported receiving grants for research from Novartis and Uriach; consulting fees from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; payment for lectures from Novartis, Allergan-AbbVie, Teva, Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending conferences from Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Lundbeck, and Pfizer. She is president elect of the European Stroke Organization and editor-in-chief of Cephalalgia. Dr. Turc reported payment for lectures from Guerbet France, is a member of the scientific advisory board of AI-Stroke, and is the Secretary General of the European Stroke Organisation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Early reduction of blood pressure has a beneficial effect in hemorrhagic stroke but a detrimental effect in ischemic stroke, new trial data show. The findings could shake up recommendations on control of blood pressure in acute stroke patients. 

“This is the first time that we have randomized evidence of blood pressure control prior to reperfusion in ischemic stroke patients, and our data will challenge the current guidelines that recommend lowering blood pressure to below 180 mm Hg systolic in these patients,” said study coauthor Craig Anderson, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia. 

“And this study also clearly shows for the first time that getting blood pressure under control in hemorrhagic stroke patients in the first couple of hours has definitive benefits,” he added.

The findings were presented on May 16 at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

A Test of Early BP Control

The trial was conducted to test the strategy of very early blood pressure control during patient transport in an ambulance after acute stroke, which investigators suspected could benefit patients with both types of stroke. 

The hypothesis was that this would reduce bleeding in the brain for those with hemorrhagic stroke. For ischemic stroke patients, it was thought this strategy would speed up administration of thrombolysis, because guidelines recommend bringing blood pressure under control before thrombolysis. 

For the INTERACT4 trial, which was conducted in China, 2404 patients with suspected acute stroke and elevated systolic blood pressure (≥ 150 mm Hg) who were assessed in the ambulance within 2 hours after symptom onset were randomized to receive immediate treatment with intravenous urapidil to lower the systolic blood pressure or usual blood pressure management (usual care group).

The median time between symptom onset and randomization was 61 minutes, and the mean blood pressure at randomization was 178/98 mm Hg. 

Stroke was subsequently confirmed by imaging in 2240 patients, of whom 46% had a hemorrhagic stroke and 54% an ischemic stroke. 

At the time of arrival at the hospital, the mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 158 mm Hg, compared with 170 mm Hg in the usual care group. 

The primary efficacy outcome was functional status as assessed by modified Rankin scale score at 90 days. 

Overall, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of functional outcome scores (common odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15), and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar. 

But the study showed very different results in patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs those with ischemic stroke. 

Prehospital reduction of blood pressure was associated with a decrease in the odds of a poor functional outcome among patients with hemorrhagic stroke (common OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92) but an increase in poor outcomes among patients with cerebral ischemia (common OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.60).

‘Slam-Dunk’ Effect 

Anderson has led several previous trials of blood pressure control in stroke patients, some of which have suggested benefit of lowering blood pressure in those with hemorrhagic stroke, but he says the results of the current trial are more clear-cut.

“We have never seen such a slam-dunk effect as there was in INTERACT4,” Dr. Anderson said. “Not only did we show that early reduction of blood pressure in hemorrhagic stroke patients improved functional outcome, it also reduced bleeding in the brain, improved survival and quality of life, and reduced surgery and infection complications. That’s quite remarkable.”

The findings offer “clear evidence that for patients with hemorrhagic stroke, we must get the blood pressure under control as soon as possible and introduce systems of care to ensure this happens,” he added.

The reason for the clear findings in the current trial is probably the treatment time, Dr. Anderson said. 

“This is the first trial in which blood pressure has been controlled in the ambulance and occurred much earlier than in the previous trials.” 

Challenging Ischemic Stroke Guidelines

The INTERACT4 results in ischemic stroke patients are likely to be more controversial. 

“Our results are clearly challenging longstanding beliefs around blood pressure control in ischemic stroke prior to thrombolysis,” Dr. Anderson said. 

Current guidelines recommend a blood pressure < 185 mm Hg systolic before initiation of thrombolysis because of concerns about intracerebral hemorrhage, he noted. Often, blood pressure is lowered rapidly down to much lower levels in order give thrombolysis quickly. 

“Our results suggest this may not be a good idea,” Dr. Anderson said. “I think these data will shake us up a bit and make us more cautious about reducing blood pressure in these patients. Personally, I wouldn’t touch the blood pressure at all in ischemic stroke patients after these results.” 

He said the mechanisms behind the different stroke types would explain the results. 

“If a patient is bleeding, it makes sense that higher blood pressure would make that worse,” Dr. Anderson said. “But when a patient has a blocked artery and ischemia in the brain, it seems likely that the extra pressure is needed to keep oxygen delivery to the ischemic tissue.”

Accurate Diagnosis Necessary

Because it is not possible to make an accurate diagnosis between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke without a CT scan, Dr. Anderson stressed that at the present time, no action on blood pressure can be taken in the ambulance. 

“There is a lot of interest in developing a lightweight brain scanner to be used in ambulances, but this won’t be routinely available for several years,” he said. “So for now, quick diagnosis of the type of stroke that is occurring on the patient’s arrival at the emergency department and, for hemorrhagic stroke patients, swift action to control blood pressure at this point is critical to preserving brain function.”

Commenting on the INTERACT4 results at the ESOC meeting, Simona Sacco, MD, professor of neurology at the University of L’Aquila, Italy, said this was a very important trial that would impact clinical practice. 

“The data really reinforce that hemorrhagic stroke patients must have their blood pressure reduced as soon as possible,” she stated. 

Dr. Sacco said the trial emphasizes the need to be able to distinguish between a hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke in a prehospital setting and supports the introduction of more mobile stroke units carrying CT scanners and calls for the development of biomarkers that can allow rapid differentiation between the two conditions. 

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Edlow, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, points out several aspects of the trial that may potentially limit the generalizability of the findings. These include use of urapidil as the antihypertensive agent, which is unavailable in the United States; all patients being of Han Chinese ethnicity; and an unusually high sensitivity of initial CT scans in detecting visible signs of ischemia or infarction in patients in acute ischemic stroke. 

“These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating, and they make the case for validation of the trial results in other settings,” Dr. Edlow wrote. 

The INTERACT4 trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the George Institute for Global Health, several Chinese healthcare institutions, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals China. Disclosures for study and editorial authors are provided in the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Early reduction of blood pressure has a beneficial effect in hemorrhagic stroke but a detrimental effect in ischemic stroke, new trial data show. The findings could shake up recommendations on control of blood pressure in acute stroke patients. 

“This is the first time that we have randomized evidence of blood pressure control prior to reperfusion in ischemic stroke patients, and our data will challenge the current guidelines that recommend lowering blood pressure to below 180 mm Hg systolic in these patients,” said study coauthor Craig Anderson, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia. 

“And this study also clearly shows for the first time that getting blood pressure under control in hemorrhagic stroke patients in the first couple of hours has definitive benefits,” he added.

The findings were presented on May 16 at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

A Test of Early BP Control

The trial was conducted to test the strategy of very early blood pressure control during patient transport in an ambulance after acute stroke, which investigators suspected could benefit patients with both types of stroke. 

The hypothesis was that this would reduce bleeding in the brain for those with hemorrhagic stroke. For ischemic stroke patients, it was thought this strategy would speed up administration of thrombolysis, because guidelines recommend bringing blood pressure under control before thrombolysis. 

For the INTERACT4 trial, which was conducted in China, 2404 patients with suspected acute stroke and elevated systolic blood pressure (≥ 150 mm Hg) who were assessed in the ambulance within 2 hours after symptom onset were randomized to receive immediate treatment with intravenous urapidil to lower the systolic blood pressure or usual blood pressure management (usual care group).

The median time between symptom onset and randomization was 61 minutes, and the mean blood pressure at randomization was 178/98 mm Hg. 

Stroke was subsequently confirmed by imaging in 2240 patients, of whom 46% had a hemorrhagic stroke and 54% an ischemic stroke. 

At the time of arrival at the hospital, the mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 158 mm Hg, compared with 170 mm Hg in the usual care group. 

The primary efficacy outcome was functional status as assessed by modified Rankin scale score at 90 days. 

Overall, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of functional outcome scores (common odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15), and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar. 

But the study showed very different results in patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs those with ischemic stroke. 

Prehospital reduction of blood pressure was associated with a decrease in the odds of a poor functional outcome among patients with hemorrhagic stroke (common OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92) but an increase in poor outcomes among patients with cerebral ischemia (common OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.60).

‘Slam-Dunk’ Effect 

Anderson has led several previous trials of blood pressure control in stroke patients, some of which have suggested benefit of lowering blood pressure in those with hemorrhagic stroke, but he says the results of the current trial are more clear-cut.

“We have never seen such a slam-dunk effect as there was in INTERACT4,” Dr. Anderson said. “Not only did we show that early reduction of blood pressure in hemorrhagic stroke patients improved functional outcome, it also reduced bleeding in the brain, improved survival and quality of life, and reduced surgery and infection complications. That’s quite remarkable.”

The findings offer “clear evidence that for patients with hemorrhagic stroke, we must get the blood pressure under control as soon as possible and introduce systems of care to ensure this happens,” he added.

The reason for the clear findings in the current trial is probably the treatment time, Dr. Anderson said. 

“This is the first trial in which blood pressure has been controlled in the ambulance and occurred much earlier than in the previous trials.” 

Challenging Ischemic Stroke Guidelines

The INTERACT4 results in ischemic stroke patients are likely to be more controversial. 

“Our results are clearly challenging longstanding beliefs around blood pressure control in ischemic stroke prior to thrombolysis,” Dr. Anderson said. 

Current guidelines recommend a blood pressure < 185 mm Hg systolic before initiation of thrombolysis because of concerns about intracerebral hemorrhage, he noted. Often, blood pressure is lowered rapidly down to much lower levels in order give thrombolysis quickly. 

“Our results suggest this may not be a good idea,” Dr. Anderson said. “I think these data will shake us up a bit and make us more cautious about reducing blood pressure in these patients. Personally, I wouldn’t touch the blood pressure at all in ischemic stroke patients after these results.” 

He said the mechanisms behind the different stroke types would explain the results. 

“If a patient is bleeding, it makes sense that higher blood pressure would make that worse,” Dr. Anderson said. “But when a patient has a blocked artery and ischemia in the brain, it seems likely that the extra pressure is needed to keep oxygen delivery to the ischemic tissue.”

Accurate Diagnosis Necessary

Because it is not possible to make an accurate diagnosis between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke without a CT scan, Dr. Anderson stressed that at the present time, no action on blood pressure can be taken in the ambulance. 

“There is a lot of interest in developing a lightweight brain scanner to be used in ambulances, but this won’t be routinely available for several years,” he said. “So for now, quick diagnosis of the type of stroke that is occurring on the patient’s arrival at the emergency department and, for hemorrhagic stroke patients, swift action to control blood pressure at this point is critical to preserving brain function.”

Commenting on the INTERACT4 results at the ESOC meeting, Simona Sacco, MD, professor of neurology at the University of L’Aquila, Italy, said this was a very important trial that would impact clinical practice. 

“The data really reinforce that hemorrhagic stroke patients must have their blood pressure reduced as soon as possible,” she stated. 

Dr. Sacco said the trial emphasizes the need to be able to distinguish between a hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke in a prehospital setting and supports the introduction of more mobile stroke units carrying CT scanners and calls for the development of biomarkers that can allow rapid differentiation between the two conditions. 

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Edlow, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, points out several aspects of the trial that may potentially limit the generalizability of the findings. These include use of urapidil as the antihypertensive agent, which is unavailable in the United States; all patients being of Han Chinese ethnicity; and an unusually high sensitivity of initial CT scans in detecting visible signs of ischemia or infarction in patients in acute ischemic stroke. 

“These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating, and they make the case for validation of the trial results in other settings,” Dr. Edlow wrote. 

The INTERACT4 trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the George Institute for Global Health, several Chinese healthcare institutions, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals China. Disclosures for study and editorial authors are provided in the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Early reduction of blood pressure has a beneficial effect in hemorrhagic stroke but a detrimental effect in ischemic stroke, new trial data show. The findings could shake up recommendations on control of blood pressure in acute stroke patients. 

“This is the first time that we have randomized evidence of blood pressure control prior to reperfusion in ischemic stroke patients, and our data will challenge the current guidelines that recommend lowering blood pressure to below 180 mm Hg systolic in these patients,” said study coauthor Craig Anderson, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia. 

“And this study also clearly shows for the first time that getting blood pressure under control in hemorrhagic stroke patients in the first couple of hours has definitive benefits,” he added.

The findings were presented on May 16 at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

A Test of Early BP Control

The trial was conducted to test the strategy of very early blood pressure control during patient transport in an ambulance after acute stroke, which investigators suspected could benefit patients with both types of stroke. 

The hypothesis was that this would reduce bleeding in the brain for those with hemorrhagic stroke. For ischemic stroke patients, it was thought this strategy would speed up administration of thrombolysis, because guidelines recommend bringing blood pressure under control before thrombolysis. 

For the INTERACT4 trial, which was conducted in China, 2404 patients with suspected acute stroke and elevated systolic blood pressure (≥ 150 mm Hg) who were assessed in the ambulance within 2 hours after symptom onset were randomized to receive immediate treatment with intravenous urapidil to lower the systolic blood pressure or usual blood pressure management (usual care group).

The median time between symptom onset and randomization was 61 minutes, and the mean blood pressure at randomization was 178/98 mm Hg. 

Stroke was subsequently confirmed by imaging in 2240 patients, of whom 46% had a hemorrhagic stroke and 54% an ischemic stroke. 

At the time of arrival at the hospital, the mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 158 mm Hg, compared with 170 mm Hg in the usual care group. 

The primary efficacy outcome was functional status as assessed by modified Rankin scale score at 90 days. 

Overall, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of functional outcome scores (common odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15), and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar. 

But the study showed very different results in patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs those with ischemic stroke. 

Prehospital reduction of blood pressure was associated with a decrease in the odds of a poor functional outcome among patients with hemorrhagic stroke (common OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92) but an increase in poor outcomes among patients with cerebral ischemia (common OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.60).

‘Slam-Dunk’ Effect 

Anderson has led several previous trials of blood pressure control in stroke patients, some of which have suggested benefit of lowering blood pressure in those with hemorrhagic stroke, but he says the results of the current trial are more clear-cut.

“We have never seen such a slam-dunk effect as there was in INTERACT4,” Dr. Anderson said. “Not only did we show that early reduction of blood pressure in hemorrhagic stroke patients improved functional outcome, it also reduced bleeding in the brain, improved survival and quality of life, and reduced surgery and infection complications. That’s quite remarkable.”

The findings offer “clear evidence that for patients with hemorrhagic stroke, we must get the blood pressure under control as soon as possible and introduce systems of care to ensure this happens,” he added.

The reason for the clear findings in the current trial is probably the treatment time, Dr. Anderson said. 

“This is the first trial in which blood pressure has been controlled in the ambulance and occurred much earlier than in the previous trials.” 

Challenging Ischemic Stroke Guidelines

The INTERACT4 results in ischemic stroke patients are likely to be more controversial. 

“Our results are clearly challenging longstanding beliefs around blood pressure control in ischemic stroke prior to thrombolysis,” Dr. Anderson said. 

Current guidelines recommend a blood pressure < 185 mm Hg systolic before initiation of thrombolysis because of concerns about intracerebral hemorrhage, he noted. Often, blood pressure is lowered rapidly down to much lower levels in order give thrombolysis quickly. 

“Our results suggest this may not be a good idea,” Dr. Anderson said. “I think these data will shake us up a bit and make us more cautious about reducing blood pressure in these patients. Personally, I wouldn’t touch the blood pressure at all in ischemic stroke patients after these results.” 

He said the mechanisms behind the different stroke types would explain the results. 

“If a patient is bleeding, it makes sense that higher blood pressure would make that worse,” Dr. Anderson said. “But when a patient has a blocked artery and ischemia in the brain, it seems likely that the extra pressure is needed to keep oxygen delivery to the ischemic tissue.”

Accurate Diagnosis Necessary

Because it is not possible to make an accurate diagnosis between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke without a CT scan, Dr. Anderson stressed that at the present time, no action on blood pressure can be taken in the ambulance. 

“There is a lot of interest in developing a lightweight brain scanner to be used in ambulances, but this won’t be routinely available for several years,” he said. “So for now, quick diagnosis of the type of stroke that is occurring on the patient’s arrival at the emergency department and, for hemorrhagic stroke patients, swift action to control blood pressure at this point is critical to preserving brain function.”

Commenting on the INTERACT4 results at the ESOC meeting, Simona Sacco, MD, professor of neurology at the University of L’Aquila, Italy, said this was a very important trial that would impact clinical practice. 

“The data really reinforce that hemorrhagic stroke patients must have their blood pressure reduced as soon as possible,” she stated. 

Dr. Sacco said the trial emphasizes the need to be able to distinguish between a hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke in a prehospital setting and supports the introduction of more mobile stroke units carrying CT scanners and calls for the development of biomarkers that can allow rapid differentiation between the two conditions. 

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Edlow, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, points out several aspects of the trial that may potentially limit the generalizability of the findings. These include use of urapidil as the antihypertensive agent, which is unavailable in the United States; all patients being of Han Chinese ethnicity; and an unusually high sensitivity of initial CT scans in detecting visible signs of ischemia or infarction in patients in acute ischemic stroke. 

“These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating, and they make the case for validation of the trial results in other settings,” Dr. Edlow wrote. 

The INTERACT4 trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the George Institute for Global Health, several Chinese healthcare institutions, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals China. Disclosures for study and editorial authors are provided in the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.