Cardiology

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation/replacement (TAVI/TAVR) is typically the domain of cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists.

In the United Kingdom, John Steele, an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) at Glenfield Hospital, part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL), was congratulated on Twitter as “the first nurse-ANP who has performed the whole TAVI procedure as the first operator – true transformation addressing NHS needs.”

Could it happen in the U.S.?

Could a U.S.-based nurse practitioner perform TAVR? Possibly. Should they? No, says Andrew M. Goldsweig, MD, chair of the U.S. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Structural Heart Council. “Experienced nurse practitioners who have participated as secondary operators in many TAVR procedures and have observed the primary physician operators likely know the technical steps involved in an uncomplicated transfemoral TAVR procedure,” he told this news organization.

“However, a physician’s depth and breadth of training are absolutely required both to recognize and to address any periprocedural issues,” said Dr. Goldsweig, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and director of cardiovascular clinical research at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass.
 

What it takes to do TAVR

Transcatheter aortic valves were first approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in patients with severe, inoperable, aortic stenosis. The procedure is now increasingly used as an alternative to surgical AVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients and has a longer history in Europe.

Dr. Goldsweig notes that “TAVR is a complex procedure with many potential challenges. Physicians are trained to diagnose and manage vascular access complications, heart failure and respiratory complications, rhythm disturbances, stroke, paravalvular leak, valve malpositioning/embolization, cardiogenic shock, and any other issues that may arise in the peri-TAVR period.

“Physicians can perform vascular imaging and interventions, transition to alternative access, manage intubation and ventilation, facilitate embolectomy, place a pacemaker, close a paravalvular leak, capture a misplaced valve, deploy mechanical circulatory support, and perform other diagnostic and interventional procedures as necessary that are required for TAVR operators and vastly exceed the training and scope of a nurse practitioner.”

The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI advanced training statement on interventional cardiology defines select competencies for interventional cardiologists who choose to focus their career on peripheral, vascular, or structural heart interventions.

In a recent article in Structural Heart, Dr. Goldsweig and colleagues write, “Training in SHD [structural heart disease] has historically been fragmented and informal. Current modes of SHD training include unaccredited fellowship training, industry-sponsored forums and device-specific training, and training through on-site proctorship.”

Such programs have grown “exponentially,” they write, “despite the conspicuous absence of formalized training requirements.”

In response to the John Steele uproar, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society posted a statement on its website, noting, “As medicine has changed so there has increasingly been a role for allied health practitioners with advanced skills to take on responsibilities that were previously considered to be the domain of doctors ...

“TAVI procedures however carry a mortality risk, and the responsibility for undertaking a successful TAVI procedure will always lie with a Cardiologist who has had the breadth of training to manage the various complications that may occur during or after a procedure. This requires years of training, and there is no short-cut, or substitute.”

The BCIS promises a statement “later in the year [on] the expected training route for undertaking TAVI and other structural heart procedures.”
 

Why it matters: Scope creep

Despite the current upheaval, it’s not the first time that a nurse in the United Kingdom has performed a procedure normally performed by a medical doctor. A 3-year-old Reddit post on r/JuniorDoctorsUK points to a 2017 Guardian article titled, “Meet the nurse who will soon perform surgery on patients alone.” Although the “surgical care practitioner” seems to be performing within the scope of her practice, people responding to the post say it’s an example of “mid-level [scope] creep.”

More recently, a Reddit post in the same group points to a congratulatory post for a “nurse-led radial access.” One person commented, “Today they do the access. Tomorrow they do the full diagnostic. Day after they do the pressure wire. Next week they do the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention].”

Broadly, “scope creep” refers to scope-of-practice expansions, but not turf wars, according to Rebekah Bernard, MD, a family physician in Fort Myers, Fla., who cowrote, “Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare,” with Niran Al-Agba, MD, a pediatrician in Silverdale, Wash.

The reasons behind U.K. scope creep aren’t clear. Some believe it’s money. Some say the system is broken and that doctors are being exploited.

In relation to the NP-TAVI case, the British Junior Cardiologist Association commented that it reflects a lack of support and advocacy for medical/surgical trainees who need the training opportunities that are going instead to allied health professionals.

In the United States, scope creep is being taken seriously (some may say too seriously) by the American Medical Association. The AMA is lobbying to stop “inappropriate scope expansions,” bolstered by its AMA Scope of Practice Partnership.

Pointing to a scope creep video produced by the AMA, one JuniorDoctorsUK Reddit post asks, “why isn’t the BMA doing anything similar?”
 

Time for a rethink?

Back to Glenfield Hospital. Not only has Cardiology Glenfield deleted the controversial tweet; it is now is backtracking on its congratulations to ANP Steele, tweeting, “We want to make clear that the lead operator for the procedure was a consultant structural interventionist. However, we are looking into the circumstances, including a review of clinical governance.” From the responses, few clinicians are buying that explanation.

In response to a request for a comment from Glenfield, Andrew Furlong, UHL medical director, reiterated to this news organization through communications manager Gareth Duggan, “We are investigating the circumstances of the procedure with our cardiology team and reviewing our governance processes.”

Dr. Goldsweig participated in a past speaking engagement for Edwards Lifesciences.

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

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation/replacement (TAVI/TAVR) is typically the domain of cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists.

In the United Kingdom, John Steele, an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) at Glenfield Hospital, part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL), was congratulated on Twitter as “the first nurse-ANP who has performed the whole TAVI procedure as the first operator – true transformation addressing NHS needs.”

Could it happen in the U.S.?

Could a U.S.-based nurse practitioner perform TAVR? Possibly. Should they? No, says Andrew M. Goldsweig, MD, chair of the U.S. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Structural Heart Council. “Experienced nurse practitioners who have participated as secondary operators in many TAVR procedures and have observed the primary physician operators likely know the technical steps involved in an uncomplicated transfemoral TAVR procedure,” he told this news organization.

“However, a physician’s depth and breadth of training are absolutely required both to recognize and to address any periprocedural issues,” said Dr. Goldsweig, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and director of cardiovascular clinical research at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass.
 

What it takes to do TAVR

Transcatheter aortic valves were first approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in patients with severe, inoperable, aortic stenosis. The procedure is now increasingly used as an alternative to surgical AVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients and has a longer history in Europe.

Dr. Goldsweig notes that “TAVR is a complex procedure with many potential challenges. Physicians are trained to diagnose and manage vascular access complications, heart failure and respiratory complications, rhythm disturbances, stroke, paravalvular leak, valve malpositioning/embolization, cardiogenic shock, and any other issues that may arise in the peri-TAVR period.

“Physicians can perform vascular imaging and interventions, transition to alternative access, manage intubation and ventilation, facilitate embolectomy, place a pacemaker, close a paravalvular leak, capture a misplaced valve, deploy mechanical circulatory support, and perform other diagnostic and interventional procedures as necessary that are required for TAVR operators and vastly exceed the training and scope of a nurse practitioner.”

The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI advanced training statement on interventional cardiology defines select competencies for interventional cardiologists who choose to focus their career on peripheral, vascular, or structural heart interventions.

In a recent article in Structural Heart, Dr. Goldsweig and colleagues write, “Training in SHD [structural heart disease] has historically been fragmented and informal. Current modes of SHD training include unaccredited fellowship training, industry-sponsored forums and device-specific training, and training through on-site proctorship.”

Such programs have grown “exponentially,” they write, “despite the conspicuous absence of formalized training requirements.”

In response to the John Steele uproar, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society posted a statement on its website, noting, “As medicine has changed so there has increasingly been a role for allied health practitioners with advanced skills to take on responsibilities that were previously considered to be the domain of doctors ...

“TAVI procedures however carry a mortality risk, and the responsibility for undertaking a successful TAVI procedure will always lie with a Cardiologist who has had the breadth of training to manage the various complications that may occur during or after a procedure. This requires years of training, and there is no short-cut, or substitute.”

The BCIS promises a statement “later in the year [on] the expected training route for undertaking TAVI and other structural heart procedures.”
 

Why it matters: Scope creep

Despite the current upheaval, it’s not the first time that a nurse in the United Kingdom has performed a procedure normally performed by a medical doctor. A 3-year-old Reddit post on r/JuniorDoctorsUK points to a 2017 Guardian article titled, “Meet the nurse who will soon perform surgery on patients alone.” Although the “surgical care practitioner” seems to be performing within the scope of her practice, people responding to the post say it’s an example of “mid-level [scope] creep.”

More recently, a Reddit post in the same group points to a congratulatory post for a “nurse-led radial access.” One person commented, “Today they do the access. Tomorrow they do the full diagnostic. Day after they do the pressure wire. Next week they do the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention].”

Broadly, “scope creep” refers to scope-of-practice expansions, but not turf wars, according to Rebekah Bernard, MD, a family physician in Fort Myers, Fla., who cowrote, “Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare,” with Niran Al-Agba, MD, a pediatrician in Silverdale, Wash.

The reasons behind U.K. scope creep aren’t clear. Some believe it’s money. Some say the system is broken and that doctors are being exploited.

In relation to the NP-TAVI case, the British Junior Cardiologist Association commented that it reflects a lack of support and advocacy for medical/surgical trainees who need the training opportunities that are going instead to allied health professionals.

In the United States, scope creep is being taken seriously (some may say too seriously) by the American Medical Association. The AMA is lobbying to stop “inappropriate scope expansions,” bolstered by its AMA Scope of Practice Partnership.

Pointing to a scope creep video produced by the AMA, one JuniorDoctorsUK Reddit post asks, “why isn’t the BMA doing anything similar?”
 

Time for a rethink?

Back to Glenfield Hospital. Not only has Cardiology Glenfield deleted the controversial tweet; it is now is backtracking on its congratulations to ANP Steele, tweeting, “We want to make clear that the lead operator for the procedure was a consultant structural interventionist. However, we are looking into the circumstances, including a review of clinical governance.” From the responses, few clinicians are buying that explanation.

In response to a request for a comment from Glenfield, Andrew Furlong, UHL medical director, reiterated to this news organization through communications manager Gareth Duggan, “We are investigating the circumstances of the procedure with our cardiology team and reviewing our governance processes.”

Dr. Goldsweig participated in a past speaking engagement for Edwards Lifesciences.

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

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation/replacement (TAVI/TAVR) is typically the domain of cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists.

In the United Kingdom, John Steele, an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) at Glenfield Hospital, part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL), was congratulated on Twitter as “the first nurse-ANP who has performed the whole TAVI procedure as the first operator – true transformation addressing NHS needs.”

Could it happen in the U.S.?

Could a U.S.-based nurse practitioner perform TAVR? Possibly. Should they? No, says Andrew M. Goldsweig, MD, chair of the U.S. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Structural Heart Council. “Experienced nurse practitioners who have participated as secondary operators in many TAVR procedures and have observed the primary physician operators likely know the technical steps involved in an uncomplicated transfemoral TAVR procedure,” he told this news organization.

“However, a physician’s depth and breadth of training are absolutely required both to recognize and to address any periprocedural issues,” said Dr. Goldsweig, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and director of cardiovascular clinical research at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass.
 

What it takes to do TAVR

Transcatheter aortic valves were first approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in patients with severe, inoperable, aortic stenosis. The procedure is now increasingly used as an alternative to surgical AVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients and has a longer history in Europe.

Dr. Goldsweig notes that “TAVR is a complex procedure with many potential challenges. Physicians are trained to diagnose and manage vascular access complications, heart failure and respiratory complications, rhythm disturbances, stroke, paravalvular leak, valve malpositioning/embolization, cardiogenic shock, and any other issues that may arise in the peri-TAVR period.

“Physicians can perform vascular imaging and interventions, transition to alternative access, manage intubation and ventilation, facilitate embolectomy, place a pacemaker, close a paravalvular leak, capture a misplaced valve, deploy mechanical circulatory support, and perform other diagnostic and interventional procedures as necessary that are required for TAVR operators and vastly exceed the training and scope of a nurse practitioner.”

The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI advanced training statement on interventional cardiology defines select competencies for interventional cardiologists who choose to focus their career on peripheral, vascular, or structural heart interventions.

In a recent article in Structural Heart, Dr. Goldsweig and colleagues write, “Training in SHD [structural heart disease] has historically been fragmented and informal. Current modes of SHD training include unaccredited fellowship training, industry-sponsored forums and device-specific training, and training through on-site proctorship.”

Such programs have grown “exponentially,” they write, “despite the conspicuous absence of formalized training requirements.”

In response to the John Steele uproar, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society posted a statement on its website, noting, “As medicine has changed so there has increasingly been a role for allied health practitioners with advanced skills to take on responsibilities that were previously considered to be the domain of doctors ...

“TAVI procedures however carry a mortality risk, and the responsibility for undertaking a successful TAVI procedure will always lie with a Cardiologist who has had the breadth of training to manage the various complications that may occur during or after a procedure. This requires years of training, and there is no short-cut, or substitute.”

The BCIS promises a statement “later in the year [on] the expected training route for undertaking TAVI and other structural heart procedures.”
 

Why it matters: Scope creep

Despite the current upheaval, it’s not the first time that a nurse in the United Kingdom has performed a procedure normally performed by a medical doctor. A 3-year-old Reddit post on r/JuniorDoctorsUK points to a 2017 Guardian article titled, “Meet the nurse who will soon perform surgery on patients alone.” Although the “surgical care practitioner” seems to be performing within the scope of her practice, people responding to the post say it’s an example of “mid-level [scope] creep.”

More recently, a Reddit post in the same group points to a congratulatory post for a “nurse-led radial access.” One person commented, “Today they do the access. Tomorrow they do the full diagnostic. Day after they do the pressure wire. Next week they do the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention].”

Broadly, “scope creep” refers to scope-of-practice expansions, but not turf wars, according to Rebekah Bernard, MD, a family physician in Fort Myers, Fla., who cowrote, “Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare,” with Niran Al-Agba, MD, a pediatrician in Silverdale, Wash.

The reasons behind U.K. scope creep aren’t clear. Some believe it’s money. Some say the system is broken and that doctors are being exploited.

In relation to the NP-TAVI case, the British Junior Cardiologist Association commented that it reflects a lack of support and advocacy for medical/surgical trainees who need the training opportunities that are going instead to allied health professionals.

In the United States, scope creep is being taken seriously (some may say too seriously) by the American Medical Association. The AMA is lobbying to stop “inappropriate scope expansions,” bolstered by its AMA Scope of Practice Partnership.

Pointing to a scope creep video produced by the AMA, one JuniorDoctorsUK Reddit post asks, “why isn’t the BMA doing anything similar?”
 

Time for a rethink?

Back to Glenfield Hospital. Not only has Cardiology Glenfield deleted the controversial tweet; it is now is backtracking on its congratulations to ANP Steele, tweeting, “We want to make clear that the lead operator for the procedure was a consultant structural interventionist. However, we are looking into the circumstances, including a review of clinical governance.” From the responses, few clinicians are buying that explanation.

In response to a request for a comment from Glenfield, Andrew Furlong, UHL medical director, reiterated to this news organization through communications manager Gareth Duggan, “We are investigating the circumstances of the procedure with our cardiology team and reviewing our governance processes.”

Dr. Goldsweig participated in a past speaking engagement for Edwards Lifesciences.

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

The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.

Potential in rheumatology

The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.

University of Wisconsin

The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.

She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.

However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.

“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”

However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.

Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.

Possibilities in dermatology

The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.

University of Pennsylvania

Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.

“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”

Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.

The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.

Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
 

Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?

Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.

Mayo Clinic

“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.

Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
 

The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.

Potential in rheumatology

The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.

University of Wisconsin

The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.

She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.

However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.

“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”

However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.

Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.

Possibilities in dermatology

The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.

University of Pennsylvania

Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.

“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”

Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.

The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.

Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
 

Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?

Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.

Mayo Clinic

“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.

Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
 

The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.

Potential in rheumatology

The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.

University of Wisconsin

The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.

She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.

However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.

“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”

However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.

Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.

Possibilities in dermatology

The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.

University of Pennsylvania

Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.

“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”

Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.

The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.

Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
 

Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?

Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.

Mayo Clinic

“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.

Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
 

It was one of those dog days of August where the humidity is palpable and the pressure is so hot and thick you can almost feel the ions in the air. At the time (2022), I was a White House fellow and senior adviser in the West Wing Office of Public Engagement and in the Office of the Vice President.

I was leaving the White House around 7:00 p.m. through the front gate on Lafayette Square. I had a dinner reservation with a friend, so I was in a rush. It was super overcast. Lo and behold, three steps after I closed the gate behind me, it started pouring. Rain came down so hard I had to take shelter.

There’s a stone building in front of the White House with archways, so I took cover underneath one of them, hoping that in a couple of minutes the rain would pass. Behind the archways are these thick, black, iron gates.

Just as I was about to make a run for it, I heard: BOOM!

It was like a bomb had gone off. In one moment, I saw the lightning bolt, heard the thunder, and felt the heat. It was all one rush of sensation. I couldn’t remember having been that scared in a long time.

I thought, “I definitely have to get out of here. In a couple of minutes there might be another strike, and I’m sitting next to iron gates!” I saw a little bit of a window in the downpour, so I started booking it. I knew there was a sheltered Secret Service area around the corner where they park their cars. A much safer place to be.

I was sprinting on the sidewalk and spotted a bunch of Secret Service agents on their bikes riding in the opposite direction, back toward the park. I knew they wouldn’t be out on bikes in this mess without a reason. As they reached me, one agent said, “Clear the sidewalk! We’re coming through with a bunch of equipment.”

I yelled, “What’s going on?”

“Four people were just struck by lightning,” he said as he zoomed past.

I thought: “Sh*t. I have to go back.”

It was like two different parts of my brain were active at the exact same time. My subcortical brain at the level of the amygdala was like: “You just ran from there, idiot. Why are you running back?” And another part of my brain was like: “This is who you are.”

The lightning had struck one of the largest trees in the park. Four bodies splayed out in one direction from the tree. They’d been taking shelter underneath it when they were hit and were blown off to one side. By the time I got there, two Secret Service agents were on the scene doing CPR. Some bystanders had started to run over.

I did a quick round of pulse checks to see everyone’s status, and all four were apneic and pulseless. I told the two Secret Service agents to keep doing compressions on the first person. Two bystanders also began compressions on another person, an older man.

More Secret Service agents arrived, and I said, “We need to do compressions on this other person right now.” One of the agents took a moment to question who I could be and why I was there. I said, “I’m a doctor. I know I’m not dressed like one, but I’m a physician.”

I told some agents to go find an AED, because these people needed to be shocked.

After they left, I was effectively trying to triage which of these four people would get the AED first. Initially, I spent more of my time on the young man, and we began to get some response from him. I then spent some time with the young woman.

It turned out there were AEDs in the pouches on the Secret Service bikes, but they were very small, dinky AEDs. We tried to apply the pads, but it was downpouring so much that the adhesive wouldn’t stick. I told one of the agents we needed a towel.

Through all this I was concerned we were going to be struck again. I mean, the metal statue of Lafayette was right there! They say lighting doesn’t strike in the same place twice, but who knows if that’s really true?

The towel arrived, and we were able to get the chests of the younger people dry enough for the AED pads. We applied two shocks first to the woman, then the young man. We got his pulse back quickly. The woman’s came back as well, but it felt much weaker.

EMS arrived shortly thereafter. We got all four patients on the transport, and they were transferred to the hospital.

The whole experience had taken 14 minutes.

At the time, I felt confident that the young man was going to survive. We’re taught that lightning bolt strikes are survivable if you can shock someone quickly. He also got pretty good CPR. But the next day I was watching the news and learned that he had passed away. So, of course I was thinking the worst about the others as well.

But a week and a half later, I learned that the young woman had been discharged from the ICU. She was the only one who made it. Her name is Amber, and we got connected through a reporter. About 2 weeks later, I invited her to the White House. I took her to the Oval Office. I met her mom and dad and husband, and we had dinner. We’ve been in touch ever since.

I remember the first time we talked on the phone, Amber said something along the lines of, “This sucks. Obviously, I was not planning for any of this to happen. But I also think there’s something good that could come from this.”

I was so surprised and happy to hear her say that. I had something similar happen to me when I was a teenager – caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I tried to intervene in a gang fight in my neighborhood. I thought a kid was going to get killed, so I jumped in, imagining I could save the day. I didn’t. They broke a bunch of my bones and I was in the hospital for a bit.

I remember thinking then that my life was over. But after some time, I found a new perspective, which was: Maybe that life is over. But maybe this could be the beginning of a new one. And maybe those things that I’ve been afraid of doing, the dreams that I have, maybe now I’m actually free to go after them.

I told Amber, if there are things that you have been waiting to do, this could be the time. She wants to be an international human rights activist, and she is kicking butt in a graduate school program to begin on that pathway. It’s been really cool to watch her chase this dream with way more vigor than she had before.

I think we bonded because we’ve gone through – obviously not the same thing, but a similar moment of being confronted with your own mortality. Realizing that life can just shatter. And so, while we’re here, we might as well go for it with all the force of a person who knows this could all disappear in an instant.

It was an extremely humbling moment. It reaffirmed that my life is not about me. I have to use the time that I’ve got on behalf of other people as much as I can. What is my life about if not being useful?

Dr. Martin is an emergency medicine physician and faculty member at the MGH Center for Social Justice and Health Equity at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

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

It was one of those dog days of August where the humidity is palpable and the pressure is so hot and thick you can almost feel the ions in the air. At the time (2022), I was a White House fellow and senior adviser in the West Wing Office of Public Engagement and in the Office of the Vice President.

I was leaving the White House around 7:00 p.m. through the front gate on Lafayette Square. I had a dinner reservation with a friend, so I was in a rush. It was super overcast. Lo and behold, three steps after I closed the gate behind me, it started pouring. Rain came down so hard I had to take shelter.

There’s a stone building in front of the White House with archways, so I took cover underneath one of them, hoping that in a couple of minutes the rain would pass. Behind the archways are these thick, black, iron gates.

Just as I was about to make a run for it, I heard: BOOM!

It was like a bomb had gone off. In one moment, I saw the lightning bolt, heard the thunder, and felt the heat. It was all one rush of sensation. I couldn’t remember having been that scared in a long time.

I thought, “I definitely have to get out of here. In a couple of minutes there might be another strike, and I’m sitting next to iron gates!” I saw a little bit of a window in the downpour, so I started booking it. I knew there was a sheltered Secret Service area around the corner where they park their cars. A much safer place to be.

I was sprinting on the sidewalk and spotted a bunch of Secret Service agents on their bikes riding in the opposite direction, back toward the park. I knew they wouldn’t be out on bikes in this mess without a reason. As they reached me, one agent said, “Clear the sidewalk! We’re coming through with a bunch of equipment.”

I yelled, “What’s going on?”

“Four people were just struck by lightning,” he said as he zoomed past.

I thought: “Sh*t. I have to go back.”

It was like two different parts of my brain were active at the exact same time. My subcortical brain at the level of the amygdala was like: “You just ran from there, idiot. Why are you running back?” And another part of my brain was like: “This is who you are.”

The lightning had struck one of the largest trees in the park. Four bodies splayed out in one direction from the tree. They’d been taking shelter underneath it when they were hit and were blown off to one side. By the time I got there, two Secret Service agents were on the scene doing CPR. Some bystanders had started to run over.

I did a quick round of pulse checks to see everyone’s status, and all four were apneic and pulseless. I told the two Secret Service agents to keep doing compressions on the first person. Two bystanders also began compressions on another person, an older man.

More Secret Service agents arrived, and I said, “We need to do compressions on this other person right now.” One of the agents took a moment to question who I could be and why I was there. I said, “I’m a doctor. I know I’m not dressed like one, but I’m a physician.”

I told some agents to go find an AED, because these people needed to be shocked.

After they left, I was effectively trying to triage which of these four people would get the AED first. Initially, I spent more of my time on the young man, and we began to get some response from him. I then spent some time with the young woman.

It turned out there were AEDs in the pouches on the Secret Service bikes, but they were very small, dinky AEDs. We tried to apply the pads, but it was downpouring so much that the adhesive wouldn’t stick. I told one of the agents we needed a towel.

Through all this I was concerned we were going to be struck again. I mean, the metal statue of Lafayette was right there! They say lighting doesn’t strike in the same place twice, but who knows if that’s really true?

The towel arrived, and we were able to get the chests of the younger people dry enough for the AED pads. We applied two shocks first to the woman, then the young man. We got his pulse back quickly. The woman’s came back as well, but it felt much weaker.

EMS arrived shortly thereafter. We got all four patients on the transport, and they were transferred to the hospital.

The whole experience had taken 14 minutes.

At the time, I felt confident that the young man was going to survive. We’re taught that lightning bolt strikes are survivable if you can shock someone quickly. He also got pretty good CPR. But the next day I was watching the news and learned that he had passed away. So, of course I was thinking the worst about the others as well.

But a week and a half later, I learned that the young woman had been discharged from the ICU. She was the only one who made it. Her name is Amber, and we got connected through a reporter. About 2 weeks later, I invited her to the White House. I took her to the Oval Office. I met her mom and dad and husband, and we had dinner. We’ve been in touch ever since.

I remember the first time we talked on the phone, Amber said something along the lines of, “This sucks. Obviously, I was not planning for any of this to happen. But I also think there’s something good that could come from this.”

I was so surprised and happy to hear her say that. I had something similar happen to me when I was a teenager – caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I tried to intervene in a gang fight in my neighborhood. I thought a kid was going to get killed, so I jumped in, imagining I could save the day. I didn’t. They broke a bunch of my bones and I was in the hospital for a bit.

I remember thinking then that my life was over. But after some time, I found a new perspective, which was: Maybe that life is over. But maybe this could be the beginning of a new one. And maybe those things that I’ve been afraid of doing, the dreams that I have, maybe now I’m actually free to go after them.

I told Amber, if there are things that you have been waiting to do, this could be the time. She wants to be an international human rights activist, and she is kicking butt in a graduate school program to begin on that pathway. It’s been really cool to watch her chase this dream with way more vigor than she had before.

I think we bonded because we’ve gone through – obviously not the same thing, but a similar moment of being confronted with your own mortality. Realizing that life can just shatter. And so, while we’re here, we might as well go for it with all the force of a person who knows this could all disappear in an instant.

It was an extremely humbling moment. It reaffirmed that my life is not about me. I have to use the time that I’ve got on behalf of other people as much as I can. What is my life about if not being useful?

Dr. Martin is an emergency medicine physician and faculty member at the MGH Center for Social Justice and Health Equity at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

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

It was one of those dog days of August where the humidity is palpable and the pressure is so hot and thick you can almost feel the ions in the air. At the time (2022), I was a White House fellow and senior adviser in the West Wing Office of Public Engagement and in the Office of the Vice President.

I was leaving the White House around 7:00 p.m. through the front gate on Lafayette Square. I had a dinner reservation with a friend, so I was in a rush. It was super overcast. Lo and behold, three steps after I closed the gate behind me, it started pouring. Rain came down so hard I had to take shelter.

There’s a stone building in front of the White House with archways, so I took cover underneath one of them, hoping that in a couple of minutes the rain would pass. Behind the archways are these thick, black, iron gates.

Just as I was about to make a run for it, I heard: BOOM!

It was like a bomb had gone off. In one moment, I saw the lightning bolt, heard the thunder, and felt the heat. It was all one rush of sensation. I couldn’t remember having been that scared in a long time.

I thought, “I definitely have to get out of here. In a couple of minutes there might be another strike, and I’m sitting next to iron gates!” I saw a little bit of a window in the downpour, so I started booking it. I knew there was a sheltered Secret Service area around the corner where they park their cars. A much safer place to be.

I was sprinting on the sidewalk and spotted a bunch of Secret Service agents on their bikes riding in the opposite direction, back toward the park. I knew they wouldn’t be out on bikes in this mess without a reason. As they reached me, one agent said, “Clear the sidewalk! We’re coming through with a bunch of equipment.”

I yelled, “What’s going on?”

“Four people were just struck by lightning,” he said as he zoomed past.

I thought: “Sh*t. I have to go back.”

It was like two different parts of my brain were active at the exact same time. My subcortical brain at the level of the amygdala was like: “You just ran from there, idiot. Why are you running back?” And another part of my brain was like: “This is who you are.”

The lightning had struck one of the largest trees in the park. Four bodies splayed out in one direction from the tree. They’d been taking shelter underneath it when they were hit and were blown off to one side. By the time I got there, two Secret Service agents were on the scene doing CPR. Some bystanders had started to run over.

I did a quick round of pulse checks to see everyone’s status, and all four were apneic and pulseless. I told the two Secret Service agents to keep doing compressions on the first person. Two bystanders also began compressions on another person, an older man.

More Secret Service agents arrived, and I said, “We need to do compressions on this other person right now.” One of the agents took a moment to question who I could be and why I was there. I said, “I’m a doctor. I know I’m not dressed like one, but I’m a physician.”

I told some agents to go find an AED, because these people needed to be shocked.

After they left, I was effectively trying to triage which of these four people would get the AED first. Initially, I spent more of my time on the young man, and we began to get some response from him. I then spent some time with the young woman.

It turned out there were AEDs in the pouches on the Secret Service bikes, but they were very small, dinky AEDs. We tried to apply the pads, but it was downpouring so much that the adhesive wouldn’t stick. I told one of the agents we needed a towel.

Through all this I was concerned we were going to be struck again. I mean, the metal statue of Lafayette was right there! They say lighting doesn’t strike in the same place twice, but who knows if that’s really true?

The towel arrived, and we were able to get the chests of the younger people dry enough for the AED pads. We applied two shocks first to the woman, then the young man. We got his pulse back quickly. The woman’s came back as well, but it felt much weaker.

EMS arrived shortly thereafter. We got all four patients on the transport, and they were transferred to the hospital.

The whole experience had taken 14 minutes.

At the time, I felt confident that the young man was going to survive. We’re taught that lightning bolt strikes are survivable if you can shock someone quickly. He also got pretty good CPR. But the next day I was watching the news and learned that he had passed away. So, of course I was thinking the worst about the others as well.

But a week and a half later, I learned that the young woman had been discharged from the ICU. She was the only one who made it. Her name is Amber, and we got connected through a reporter. About 2 weeks later, I invited her to the White House. I took her to the Oval Office. I met her mom and dad and husband, and we had dinner. We’ve been in touch ever since.

I remember the first time we talked on the phone, Amber said something along the lines of, “This sucks. Obviously, I was not planning for any of this to happen. But I also think there’s something good that could come from this.”

I was so surprised and happy to hear her say that. I had something similar happen to me when I was a teenager – caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I tried to intervene in a gang fight in my neighborhood. I thought a kid was going to get killed, so I jumped in, imagining I could save the day. I didn’t. They broke a bunch of my bones and I was in the hospital for a bit.

I remember thinking then that my life was over. But after some time, I found a new perspective, which was: Maybe that life is over. But maybe this could be the beginning of a new one. And maybe those things that I’ve been afraid of doing, the dreams that I have, maybe now I’m actually free to go after them.

I told Amber, if there are things that you have been waiting to do, this could be the time. She wants to be an international human rights activist, and she is kicking butt in a graduate school program to begin on that pathway. It’s been really cool to watch her chase this dream with way more vigor than she had before.

I think we bonded because we’ve gone through – obviously not the same thing, but a similar moment of being confronted with your own mortality. Realizing that life can just shatter. And so, while we’re here, we might as well go for it with all the force of a person who knows this could all disappear in an instant.

It was an extremely humbling moment. It reaffirmed that my life is not about me. I have to use the time that I’ve got on behalf of other people as much as I can. What is my life about if not being useful?

Dr. Martin is an emergency medicine physician and faculty member at the MGH Center for Social Justice and Health Equity at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on equity in cardio-oncology care and research.

A “growing body of evidence” suggests that women and people from underrepresented patient groups experience disproportionately higher cardiovascular effects from new and emerging anticancer therapies, the writing group, led by Daniel Addison, MD, with the Ohio State University, Columbus, pointed out.

For example, women appear to be at higher risk of immune checkpoint inhibitor–related toxicities, whereas Black patients with cancer face up to a threefold higher risk of cardiotoxicity with anticancer therapies.

With reduced screening and delayed preventive measures, Hispanic patients have more complex heart disease, cancer is diagnosed at later stages, and they receive more cardiotoxic regimens because of a lack of eligibility for novel treatments. Ultimately, this contributes to a higher incidence of treatment complications, cardiac dysfunction, and adverse patient outcomes for this patient group, they write.

Although no studies have specifically addressed cardio-oncology disparities in the LGBTQIA+ population, such disparities can be inferred from known cardiovascular disease and oncology disparities, the writing group noted.

These disparities are supported by “disparately high” risk of death after a cancer diagnosis among women and individuals from underrepresented groups, even after accounting for socioeconomic and behavioral patterns, they pointed out.

The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Evidence gaps and the path forward

“Despite advances in strategies to limit the risks of cardiovascular events among cancer survivors, relatively limited guidance is available to address the rapidly growing problem of disparate cardiotoxic risks among women and underrepresented patient populations,” the writing group said.

Decentralized and sporadic evaluations have led to a lack of consensus on the definitions, investigations, and potential optimal strategies to address disparate cardiotoxicity with contemporary cancer immunotherapy, as well as biologic and cytotoxic therapies, they noted.

They said caution is needed when interpreting clinical trial data about cardiotoxicity and in generalizing the results because people from diverse racial and ethnic groups have not been well represented in many trials.

The writing group outlined key evidence gaps and future research directions for addressing cardio-oncology disparities, as well as strategies to improve equity in cardio-oncology care and research.

These include the following:

• Identifying specific predictive factors of long-term cardiotoxic risk with targeted and immune-based cancer therapies in women and underrepresented populations.
• Investigating biological mechanisms that may underlie differences in cardiotoxicities between different patient groups.
• Developing personalized cardioprotection strategies that integrate biological, genetic, and social determinant markers.
• Intentionally diversifying clinical trials and identifying optimal strategies to improve representation in cancer clinical trials.
• Determining the role of technology, such as artificial intelligence, in improving cardiotoxicity disparities.

“Conscientiously leveraging technology and designing trials with outcomes related to these issues in practice (considering feasibility and cost) will critically accelerate the field of cardio-oncology in the 21st century. With tangible goals, we can improve health inequities in cardio-oncology,” the writing group said.

The research had no commercial funding. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on equity in cardio-oncology care and research.

A “growing body of evidence” suggests that women and people from underrepresented patient groups experience disproportionately higher cardiovascular effects from new and emerging anticancer therapies, the writing group, led by Daniel Addison, MD, with the Ohio State University, Columbus, pointed out.

For example, women appear to be at higher risk of immune checkpoint inhibitor–related toxicities, whereas Black patients with cancer face up to a threefold higher risk of cardiotoxicity with anticancer therapies.

With reduced screening and delayed preventive measures, Hispanic patients have more complex heart disease, cancer is diagnosed at later stages, and they receive more cardiotoxic regimens because of a lack of eligibility for novel treatments. Ultimately, this contributes to a higher incidence of treatment complications, cardiac dysfunction, and adverse patient outcomes for this patient group, they write.

Although no studies have specifically addressed cardio-oncology disparities in the LGBTQIA+ population, such disparities can be inferred from known cardiovascular disease and oncology disparities, the writing group noted.

These disparities are supported by “disparately high” risk of death after a cancer diagnosis among women and individuals from underrepresented groups, even after accounting for socioeconomic and behavioral patterns, they pointed out.

The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Evidence gaps and the path forward

“Despite advances in strategies to limit the risks of cardiovascular events among cancer survivors, relatively limited guidance is available to address the rapidly growing problem of disparate cardiotoxic risks among women and underrepresented patient populations,” the writing group said.

Decentralized and sporadic evaluations have led to a lack of consensus on the definitions, investigations, and potential optimal strategies to address disparate cardiotoxicity with contemporary cancer immunotherapy, as well as biologic and cytotoxic therapies, they noted.

They said caution is needed when interpreting clinical trial data about cardiotoxicity and in generalizing the results because people from diverse racial and ethnic groups have not been well represented in many trials.

The writing group outlined key evidence gaps and future research directions for addressing cardio-oncology disparities, as well as strategies to improve equity in cardio-oncology care and research.

These include the following:

• Identifying specific predictive factors of long-term cardiotoxic risk with targeted and immune-based cancer therapies in women and underrepresented populations.
• Investigating biological mechanisms that may underlie differences in cardiotoxicities between different patient groups.
• Developing personalized cardioprotection strategies that integrate biological, genetic, and social determinant markers.
• Intentionally diversifying clinical trials and identifying optimal strategies to improve representation in cancer clinical trials.
• Determining the role of technology, such as artificial intelligence, in improving cardiotoxicity disparities.

“Conscientiously leveraging technology and designing trials with outcomes related to these issues in practice (considering feasibility and cost) will critically accelerate the field of cardio-oncology in the 21st century. With tangible goals, we can improve health inequities in cardio-oncology,” the writing group said.

The research had no commercial funding. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on equity in cardio-oncology care and research.

A “growing body of evidence” suggests that women and people from underrepresented patient groups experience disproportionately higher cardiovascular effects from new and emerging anticancer therapies, the writing group, led by Daniel Addison, MD, with the Ohio State University, Columbus, pointed out.

For example, women appear to be at higher risk of immune checkpoint inhibitor–related toxicities, whereas Black patients with cancer face up to a threefold higher risk of cardiotoxicity with anticancer therapies.

With reduced screening and delayed preventive measures, Hispanic patients have more complex heart disease, cancer is diagnosed at later stages, and they receive more cardiotoxic regimens because of a lack of eligibility for novel treatments. Ultimately, this contributes to a higher incidence of treatment complications, cardiac dysfunction, and adverse patient outcomes for this patient group, they write.

Although no studies have specifically addressed cardio-oncology disparities in the LGBTQIA+ population, such disparities can be inferred from known cardiovascular disease and oncology disparities, the writing group noted.

These disparities are supported by “disparately high” risk of death after a cancer diagnosis among women and individuals from underrepresented groups, even after accounting for socioeconomic and behavioral patterns, they pointed out.

The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Evidence gaps and the path forward

“Despite advances in strategies to limit the risks of cardiovascular events among cancer survivors, relatively limited guidance is available to address the rapidly growing problem of disparate cardiotoxic risks among women and underrepresented patient populations,” the writing group said.

Decentralized and sporadic evaluations have led to a lack of consensus on the definitions, investigations, and potential optimal strategies to address disparate cardiotoxicity with contemporary cancer immunotherapy, as well as biologic and cytotoxic therapies, they noted.

They said caution is needed when interpreting clinical trial data about cardiotoxicity and in generalizing the results because people from diverse racial and ethnic groups have not been well represented in many trials.

The writing group outlined key evidence gaps and future research directions for addressing cardio-oncology disparities, as well as strategies to improve equity in cardio-oncology care and research.

These include the following:

• Identifying specific predictive factors of long-term cardiotoxic risk with targeted and immune-based cancer therapies in women and underrepresented populations.
• Investigating biological mechanisms that may underlie differences in cardiotoxicities between different patient groups.
• Developing personalized cardioprotection strategies that integrate biological, genetic, and social determinant markers.
• Intentionally diversifying clinical trials and identifying optimal strategies to improve representation in cancer clinical trials.
• Determining the role of technology, such as artificial intelligence, in improving cardiotoxicity disparities.

“Conscientiously leveraging technology and designing trials with outcomes related to these issues in practice (considering feasibility and cost) will critically accelerate the field of cardio-oncology in the 21st century. With tangible goals, we can improve health inequities in cardio-oncology,” the writing group said.

The research had no commercial funding. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

Continuing anticoagulation indefinitely in patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) may have benefits for certain patients but is unlikely to be cost effective, say authors of a new study.

Continued anticoagulation for such patients “has little chance of improving life expectancy but might provide a mortality benefit in certain subgroups including patients with an initial PE (pulmonary embolism) or those at a very low risk for major bleeding,” wrote the authors, led by Faizan Khan, PhD, with the O’Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary (Alta.).

Therefore, shared decision-making between patients with unprovoked VTE and physicians that includes discussion of preferences and values and use of validated prediction tools is important.

The authors noted that some patients might value avoiding morbidities of recurrent VTE the most and want to have lifelong anticoagulation. Some might be more fearful of major bleeding than VTE repercussions or don’t want the inconveniences of taking anticoagulants for a lifetime.

The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Current guidelines recommend indefinite anticoagulation

Clinical practice guidelines now recommend indefinite anticoagulation for a first unprovoked VTE.

The authors did a modeling study in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients aged 55 years with a first unprovoked VTE who had completed 3-6 months of initial anticoagulation. The study found indefinite anticoagulation, compared with discontinuing anticoagulation, on average, resulted in 368 fewer recurrent VTE events and 14 fewer fatal PE events.

At the same time, indefinite coagulation in the hypothetical group induced an additional 114 major bleeding events, 30 intracerebral hemorrhages, and 11 fatal bleeding events over 40 years.

As for cost effectiveness, from the perspective of Canada’s health care system, continuing anticoagulation indefinitely, on average, increased costs by $16,014 Canadian dollars per person ($12,140 USD) without improving quality-adjusted life-years (incremental difference, 0.075 per person; 95% uncertainty interval, –0.192 to 0.017).

The authors noted that cost is a prime consideration as the estimated annual health care costs of VTE and its complications is $600 Canadian dollars ($7 billion–$10 billion USD).
 

High probability of small benefit

The authors spelled out the small benefit in patients with an initial PE.

According to the study, indefinite anticoagulation would result in an 80% probability of a marginal added clinical benefit (average increase of 57 days of perfect health over a lifetime) in patients with an initial PE (but with only a 24% chance of being cost effective).

“This high probability of an additional clinical benefit is plausible due to the higher proportion of recurrent VTE events presenting as PE (approximately 70% of episodes) in patients initially presenting with PE, in turn, resulting in a two- to threefold higher case-fatality rate of recurrent VTE in this patient subgroup.”
 

Tools to estimate bleeding risk imprecise

Scott Woller, MD, an internal medicine specialist and chair of medicine at Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah, said in an interview that these results should help physicians’ discuss with their patients about duration of anticoagulation after the treatment phase.

He noted that the authors suggest that a low estimated annual risk for major bleeding should be assumed (< 0.67%) to make the choice for indefinite anticoagulation.

“This is a sticky wicket,” he said, “as tools to estimate bleeding risk among VTE patients are presently imprecise. For these reasons PCPs should take into account patient risk estimates – and the limitations that exist surrounding how we calculate these estimates – in addition to their values and preferences. This is really key in electing duration of anticoagulation.” 

A limitation of the study is that the model assumed that risks for recurrent VTE and major bleeding in clinical trials at 1 year remained constant during extended anticoagulation.

Dr. Woller said about that limitation: “One might argue that this is unlikely; age is a risk factor for major bleeding and therefore risks may be underestimated. However, in the ‘real world’ those that are perceived at lowest risk and demonstrate good tolerance to anticoagulation might likely preferentially continue anticoagulants and therefore risks may be overestimated.”

One coauthor reported being a clinical investigator for trials sponsored by Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb and receiving honoraria from Pfizer, Sanofi and Aspen Pharma. The other authors disclosed no other relevant financial relationships. Dr. Woller is cochair of the CHEST guidelines on the treatment of venous thromboembolic disease.

Continuing anticoagulation indefinitely in patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) may have benefits for certain patients but is unlikely to be cost effective, say authors of a new study.

Continued anticoagulation for such patients “has little chance of improving life expectancy but might provide a mortality benefit in certain subgroups including patients with an initial PE (pulmonary embolism) or those at a very low risk for major bleeding,” wrote the authors, led by Faizan Khan, PhD, with the O’Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary (Alta.).

Therefore, shared decision-making between patients with unprovoked VTE and physicians that includes discussion of preferences and values and use of validated prediction tools is important.

The authors noted that some patients might value avoiding morbidities of recurrent VTE the most and want to have lifelong anticoagulation. Some might be more fearful of major bleeding than VTE repercussions or don’t want the inconveniences of taking anticoagulants for a lifetime.

The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Current guidelines recommend indefinite anticoagulation

Clinical practice guidelines now recommend indefinite anticoagulation for a first unprovoked VTE.

The authors did a modeling study in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients aged 55 years with a first unprovoked VTE who had completed 3-6 months of initial anticoagulation. The study found indefinite anticoagulation, compared with discontinuing anticoagulation, on average, resulted in 368 fewer recurrent VTE events and 14 fewer fatal PE events.

At the same time, indefinite coagulation in the hypothetical group induced an additional 114 major bleeding events, 30 intracerebral hemorrhages, and 11 fatal bleeding events over 40 years.

As for cost effectiveness, from the perspective of Canada’s health care system, continuing anticoagulation indefinitely, on average, increased costs by $16,014 Canadian dollars per person ($12,140 USD) without improving quality-adjusted life-years (incremental difference, 0.075 per person; 95% uncertainty interval, –0.192 to 0.017).

The authors noted that cost is a prime consideration as the estimated annual health care costs of VTE and its complications is $600 Canadian dollars ($7 billion–$10 billion USD).
 

High probability of small benefit

The authors spelled out the small benefit in patients with an initial PE.

According to the study, indefinite anticoagulation would result in an 80% probability of a marginal added clinical benefit (average increase of 57 days of perfect health over a lifetime) in patients with an initial PE (but with only a 24% chance of being cost effective).

“This high probability of an additional clinical benefit is plausible due to the higher proportion of recurrent VTE events presenting as PE (approximately 70% of episodes) in patients initially presenting with PE, in turn, resulting in a two- to threefold higher case-fatality rate of recurrent VTE in this patient subgroup.”
 

Tools to estimate bleeding risk imprecise

Scott Woller, MD, an internal medicine specialist and chair of medicine at Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah, said in an interview that these results should help physicians’ discuss with their patients about duration of anticoagulation after the treatment phase.

He noted that the authors suggest that a low estimated annual risk for major bleeding should be assumed (< 0.67%) to make the choice for indefinite anticoagulation.

“This is a sticky wicket,” he said, “as tools to estimate bleeding risk among VTE patients are presently imprecise. For these reasons PCPs should take into account patient risk estimates – and the limitations that exist surrounding how we calculate these estimates – in addition to their values and preferences. This is really key in electing duration of anticoagulation.” 

A limitation of the study is that the model assumed that risks for recurrent VTE and major bleeding in clinical trials at 1 year remained constant during extended anticoagulation.

Dr. Woller said about that limitation: “One might argue that this is unlikely; age is a risk factor for major bleeding and therefore risks may be underestimated. However, in the ‘real world’ those that are perceived at lowest risk and demonstrate good tolerance to anticoagulation might likely preferentially continue anticoagulants and therefore risks may be overestimated.”

One coauthor reported being a clinical investigator for trials sponsored by Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb and receiving honoraria from Pfizer, Sanofi and Aspen Pharma. The other authors disclosed no other relevant financial relationships. Dr. Woller is cochair of the CHEST guidelines on the treatment of venous thromboembolic disease.

Continuing anticoagulation indefinitely in patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) may have benefits for certain patients but is unlikely to be cost effective, say authors of a new study.

Continued anticoagulation for such patients “has little chance of improving life expectancy but might provide a mortality benefit in certain subgroups including patients with an initial PE (pulmonary embolism) or those at a very low risk for major bleeding,” wrote the authors, led by Faizan Khan, PhD, with the O’Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary (Alta.).

Therefore, shared decision-making between patients with unprovoked VTE and physicians that includes discussion of preferences and values and use of validated prediction tools is important.

The authors noted that some patients might value avoiding morbidities of recurrent VTE the most and want to have lifelong anticoagulation. Some might be more fearful of major bleeding than VTE repercussions or don’t want the inconveniences of taking anticoagulants for a lifetime.

The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Current guidelines recommend indefinite anticoagulation

Clinical practice guidelines now recommend indefinite anticoagulation for a first unprovoked VTE.

The authors did a modeling study in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients aged 55 years with a first unprovoked VTE who had completed 3-6 months of initial anticoagulation. The study found indefinite anticoagulation, compared with discontinuing anticoagulation, on average, resulted in 368 fewer recurrent VTE events and 14 fewer fatal PE events.

At the same time, indefinite coagulation in the hypothetical group induced an additional 114 major bleeding events, 30 intracerebral hemorrhages, and 11 fatal bleeding events over 40 years.

As for cost effectiveness, from the perspective of Canada’s health care system, continuing anticoagulation indefinitely, on average, increased costs by $16,014 Canadian dollars per person ($12,140 USD) without improving quality-adjusted life-years (incremental difference, 0.075 per person; 95% uncertainty interval, –0.192 to 0.017).

The authors noted that cost is a prime consideration as the estimated annual health care costs of VTE and its complications is $600 Canadian dollars ($7 billion–$10 billion USD).
 

High probability of small benefit

The authors spelled out the small benefit in patients with an initial PE.

According to the study, indefinite anticoagulation would result in an 80% probability of a marginal added clinical benefit (average increase of 57 days of perfect health over a lifetime) in patients with an initial PE (but with only a 24% chance of being cost effective).

“This high probability of an additional clinical benefit is plausible due to the higher proportion of recurrent VTE events presenting as PE (approximately 70% of episodes) in patients initially presenting with PE, in turn, resulting in a two- to threefold higher case-fatality rate of recurrent VTE in this patient subgroup.”
 

Tools to estimate bleeding risk imprecise

Scott Woller, MD, an internal medicine specialist and chair of medicine at Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah, said in an interview that these results should help physicians’ discuss with their patients about duration of anticoagulation after the treatment phase.

He noted that the authors suggest that a low estimated annual risk for major bleeding should be assumed (< 0.67%) to make the choice for indefinite anticoagulation.

“This is a sticky wicket,” he said, “as tools to estimate bleeding risk among VTE patients are presently imprecise. For these reasons PCPs should take into account patient risk estimates – and the limitations that exist surrounding how we calculate these estimates – in addition to their values and preferences. This is really key in electing duration of anticoagulation.” 

A limitation of the study is that the model assumed that risks for recurrent VTE and major bleeding in clinical trials at 1 year remained constant during extended anticoagulation.

Dr. Woller said about that limitation: “One might argue that this is unlikely; age is a risk factor for major bleeding and therefore risks may be underestimated. However, in the ‘real world’ those that are perceived at lowest risk and demonstrate good tolerance to anticoagulation might likely preferentially continue anticoagulants and therefore risks may be overestimated.”

One coauthor reported being a clinical investigator for trials sponsored by Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb and receiving honoraria from Pfizer, Sanofi and Aspen Pharma. The other authors disclosed no other relevant financial relationships. Dr. Woller is cochair of the CHEST guidelines on the treatment of venous thromboembolic disease.

The best part of waking up is placebo in your cup

Coffee makes the world go round. It’s impossible to picture any workplace without a cast of forlorn characters huddled around the office coffee maker on a Monday morning, imbibing their beverage du jour until they’ve been lifted out of their semi-zombified stupor.

PxHere

Millions upon millions of people swear by their morning coffee. And if they don’t get that sweet, sweet caffeine boost, they’ll make Garfield and the Boomtown Rats’ opinions of Mondays look tame. And it only makes sense that they’d believe that. After all, caffeine is a stimulant. It helps your brain focus and kicks it into overdrive. Of course drinking a beverage full of caffeine wakes you up. Right?

Not so fast, a group of Portuguese researchers say. That morning cup of coffee? It may actually be a placebo. Cue the dramatic sound effect.

Here’s the scoop: After recruiting a group of coffee drinkers (at least one cup a day), the researchers kept their test subjects off of coffee for at least 3 hours, then performed a brief functional MRI scan on all test subjects. Half an hour later, study participants received either a standard cup of coffee or pure caffeine. Half an hour after consuming their respective study product, the subjects underwent a second MRI.

As expected, both people who consumed coffee and those who consumed pure caffeine showed decreased connectivity in the default mode network after consumption, indicating preparation in the brain to move from resting to working on tasks. However, those who had pure caffeine did not show increased connectivity in the visual and executive control networks, while those who had coffee did. Simply put, caffeine may wake you up, but it doesn’t make you any sharper. Only coffee gets you in shape for that oh-so-important Monday meeting.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. How can the drug part of coffee not be responsible for every effect the drink gives you? That’s where the placebo comes in, according to the scientists. It’s possible the effect they saw was caused by withdrawal – after just 3 hours? Yikes, hope not – but it’s more likely it comes down to psychology. We expect coffee to wake us up and make us ready for the day, so that’s exactly what it does. Hey, if that’s all it takes, time to convince ourselves that eating an entire pizza is actually an incredibly effective weight loss tool. Don’t let us down now, placebo effect.
 

Bread, milk, toilet paper, AFib diagnosis

Now consider the shopping cart. It does its job of carrying stuff around the store well enough, but can it lift you out of a semi-zombified stupor in the morning? No. Can it identify undiagnosed atrial fibrillation? Again, no.

Gustavo Fring

Not so fast, say the investigators conducting the SHOPS-AF (Supermarket/Hypermarket Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation) study. They built a better shopping cart. Except they call it a trolley, not a cart, since the study was conducted in England, where they sometimes have funny names for things.

Their improved shopping trolley – we’re just going to call it a cart from here on – has an electrocardiogram sensor embedded into the handlebar, so it can effectively detect AFib in shoppers who held it for at least 60 seconds. The sensor lights up red if it detects an irregular heartbeat and green if it does not. Let’s see a cup of coffee do that.

They put 10 of these modified carts in four supermarkets in Liverpool to see what would happen. Would shoppers be able to tell that we secretly replaced the fine coffee they usually serve with Folger’s crystals? Oops. Sorry about that. Coffee on the brain, apparently. Back to the carts.

A total of 2,155 adult shoppers used one of the carts over 2 months, and electrocardiogram data were available for 220 participants who either had a red light on the sensor and/or an irregular pulse that suggested atrial fibrillation. After further review by the SHOPS-AF cardiologist, AFib was diagnosed in 59 shoppers, of whom 39 were previously undiagnosed.

They’re already working to cut the scan time to 30 seconds for SHOPS-AF II, but we’re wondering about a possible flaw in the whole health-care-delivery-through-shopping-cart scenario. When we go to the local super/hyper/megamart, it seems like half of the people trundling up and down the aisles are store employees filling orders for customers who won’t even set foot inside. Is the shopping cart on its way out? Maybe. Who wants to tell the SHOPS-AF II team? Not us.
 

Put pneumonia where your mouth is

Getting dentures does not mean the end of dental care. If anything, new research reveals a huge reason for staying on top of one’s denture care: pneumonia.

Pxfuel

It all started with swabs. Scientists in the United Kingdom took mouth, tongue, and denture specimens from frail elderly hospital patients who had pneumonia and wore dentures and from similar patients in care homes who wore dentures and did not have pneumonia. When they compared the microbial populations of the two groups, the investigators found about 20 times the number of respiratory pathogens on the dentures of those with pneumonia.

The research team suggested that dentures may play a role in causing pneumonia, but lead author Josh Twigg, BDS, PhD, also noted that “you certainly couldn’t say that people got pneumonia because they were wearing dentures. It’s just showing that there is an association there.” Improper cleaning, though, could lead to microbial colonization of the dentures, and patients could be inhaling those microbes into their lungs, thereby turning a dental issue into a respiratory issue.

More research needs to be done on the association between dentures and pneumonia, but Dr. Twigg hoped that the results of this study could be presented to the public. The message? “It is important to clean dentures thoroughly” and visit the dentist regularly, he said, but the best way to prevent denture-related infections is to avoid needing to wear dentures entirely.

The best part of waking up is placebo in your cup

Coffee makes the world go round. It’s impossible to picture any workplace without a cast of forlorn characters huddled around the office coffee maker on a Monday morning, imbibing their beverage du jour until they’ve been lifted out of their semi-zombified stupor.

PxHere

Millions upon millions of people swear by their morning coffee. And if they don’t get that sweet, sweet caffeine boost, they’ll make Garfield and the Boomtown Rats’ opinions of Mondays look tame. And it only makes sense that they’d believe that. After all, caffeine is a stimulant. It helps your brain focus and kicks it into overdrive. Of course drinking a beverage full of caffeine wakes you up. Right?

Not so fast, a group of Portuguese researchers say. That morning cup of coffee? It may actually be a placebo. Cue the dramatic sound effect.

Here’s the scoop: After recruiting a group of coffee drinkers (at least one cup a day), the researchers kept their test subjects off of coffee for at least 3 hours, then performed a brief functional MRI scan on all test subjects. Half an hour later, study participants received either a standard cup of coffee or pure caffeine. Half an hour after consuming their respective study product, the subjects underwent a second MRI.

As expected, both people who consumed coffee and those who consumed pure caffeine showed decreased connectivity in the default mode network after consumption, indicating preparation in the brain to move from resting to working on tasks. However, those who had pure caffeine did not show increased connectivity in the visual and executive control networks, while those who had coffee did. Simply put, caffeine may wake you up, but it doesn’t make you any sharper. Only coffee gets you in shape for that oh-so-important Monday meeting.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. How can the drug part of coffee not be responsible for every effect the drink gives you? That’s where the placebo comes in, according to the scientists. It’s possible the effect they saw was caused by withdrawal – after just 3 hours? Yikes, hope not – but it’s more likely it comes down to psychology. We expect coffee to wake us up and make us ready for the day, so that’s exactly what it does. Hey, if that’s all it takes, time to convince ourselves that eating an entire pizza is actually an incredibly effective weight loss tool. Don’t let us down now, placebo effect.
 

Bread, milk, toilet paper, AFib diagnosis

Now consider the shopping cart. It does its job of carrying stuff around the store well enough, but can it lift you out of a semi-zombified stupor in the morning? No. Can it identify undiagnosed atrial fibrillation? Again, no.

Gustavo Fring

Not so fast, say the investigators conducting the SHOPS-AF (Supermarket/Hypermarket Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation) study. They built a better shopping cart. Except they call it a trolley, not a cart, since the study was conducted in England, where they sometimes have funny names for things.

Their improved shopping trolley – we’re just going to call it a cart from here on – has an electrocardiogram sensor embedded into the handlebar, so it can effectively detect AFib in shoppers who held it for at least 60 seconds. The sensor lights up red if it detects an irregular heartbeat and green if it does not. Let’s see a cup of coffee do that.

They put 10 of these modified carts in four supermarkets in Liverpool to see what would happen. Would shoppers be able to tell that we secretly replaced the fine coffee they usually serve with Folger’s crystals? Oops. Sorry about that. Coffee on the brain, apparently. Back to the carts.

A total of 2,155 adult shoppers used one of the carts over 2 months, and electrocardiogram data were available for 220 participants who either had a red light on the sensor and/or an irregular pulse that suggested atrial fibrillation. After further review by the SHOPS-AF cardiologist, AFib was diagnosed in 59 shoppers, of whom 39 were previously undiagnosed.

They’re already working to cut the scan time to 30 seconds for SHOPS-AF II, but we’re wondering about a possible flaw in the whole health-care-delivery-through-shopping-cart scenario. When we go to the local super/hyper/megamart, it seems like half of the people trundling up and down the aisles are store employees filling orders for customers who won’t even set foot inside. Is the shopping cart on its way out? Maybe. Who wants to tell the SHOPS-AF II team? Not us.
 

Put pneumonia where your mouth is

Getting dentures does not mean the end of dental care. If anything, new research reveals a huge reason for staying on top of one’s denture care: pneumonia.

Pxfuel

It all started with swabs. Scientists in the United Kingdom took mouth, tongue, and denture specimens from frail elderly hospital patients who had pneumonia and wore dentures and from similar patients in care homes who wore dentures and did not have pneumonia. When they compared the microbial populations of the two groups, the investigators found about 20 times the number of respiratory pathogens on the dentures of those with pneumonia.

The research team suggested that dentures may play a role in causing pneumonia, but lead author Josh Twigg, BDS, PhD, also noted that “you certainly couldn’t say that people got pneumonia because they were wearing dentures. It’s just showing that there is an association there.” Improper cleaning, though, could lead to microbial colonization of the dentures, and patients could be inhaling those microbes into their lungs, thereby turning a dental issue into a respiratory issue.

More research needs to be done on the association between dentures and pneumonia, but Dr. Twigg hoped that the results of this study could be presented to the public. The message? “It is important to clean dentures thoroughly” and visit the dentist regularly, he said, but the best way to prevent denture-related infections is to avoid needing to wear dentures entirely.

The best part of waking up is placebo in your cup

Coffee makes the world go round. It’s impossible to picture any workplace without a cast of forlorn characters huddled around the office coffee maker on a Monday morning, imbibing their beverage du jour until they’ve been lifted out of their semi-zombified stupor.

PxHere

Millions upon millions of people swear by their morning coffee. And if they don’t get that sweet, sweet caffeine boost, they’ll make Garfield and the Boomtown Rats’ opinions of Mondays look tame. And it only makes sense that they’d believe that. After all, caffeine is a stimulant. It helps your brain focus and kicks it into overdrive. Of course drinking a beverage full of caffeine wakes you up. Right?

Not so fast, a group of Portuguese researchers say. That morning cup of coffee? It may actually be a placebo. Cue the dramatic sound effect.

Here’s the scoop: After recruiting a group of coffee drinkers (at least one cup a day), the researchers kept their test subjects off of coffee for at least 3 hours, then performed a brief functional MRI scan on all test subjects. Half an hour later, study participants received either a standard cup of coffee or pure caffeine. Half an hour after consuming their respective study product, the subjects underwent a second MRI.

As expected, both people who consumed coffee and those who consumed pure caffeine showed decreased connectivity in the default mode network after consumption, indicating preparation in the brain to move from resting to working on tasks. However, those who had pure caffeine did not show increased connectivity in the visual and executive control networks, while those who had coffee did. Simply put, caffeine may wake you up, but it doesn’t make you any sharper. Only coffee gets you in shape for that oh-so-important Monday meeting.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. How can the drug part of coffee not be responsible for every effect the drink gives you? That’s where the placebo comes in, according to the scientists. It’s possible the effect they saw was caused by withdrawal – after just 3 hours? Yikes, hope not – but it’s more likely it comes down to psychology. We expect coffee to wake us up and make us ready for the day, so that’s exactly what it does. Hey, if that’s all it takes, time to convince ourselves that eating an entire pizza is actually an incredibly effective weight loss tool. Don’t let us down now, placebo effect.
 

Bread, milk, toilet paper, AFib diagnosis

Now consider the shopping cart. It does its job of carrying stuff around the store well enough, but can it lift you out of a semi-zombified stupor in the morning? No. Can it identify undiagnosed atrial fibrillation? Again, no.

Gustavo Fring

Not so fast, say the investigators conducting the SHOPS-AF (Supermarket/Hypermarket Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation) study. They built a better shopping cart. Except they call it a trolley, not a cart, since the study was conducted in England, where they sometimes have funny names for things.

Their improved shopping trolley – we’re just going to call it a cart from here on – has an electrocardiogram sensor embedded into the handlebar, so it can effectively detect AFib in shoppers who held it for at least 60 seconds. The sensor lights up red if it detects an irregular heartbeat and green if it does not. Let’s see a cup of coffee do that.

They put 10 of these modified carts in four supermarkets in Liverpool to see what would happen. Would shoppers be able to tell that we secretly replaced the fine coffee they usually serve with Folger’s crystals? Oops. Sorry about that. Coffee on the brain, apparently. Back to the carts.

A total of 2,155 adult shoppers used one of the carts over 2 months, and electrocardiogram data were available for 220 participants who either had a red light on the sensor and/or an irregular pulse that suggested atrial fibrillation. After further review by the SHOPS-AF cardiologist, AFib was diagnosed in 59 shoppers, of whom 39 were previously undiagnosed.

They’re already working to cut the scan time to 30 seconds for SHOPS-AF II, but we’re wondering about a possible flaw in the whole health-care-delivery-through-shopping-cart scenario. When we go to the local super/hyper/megamart, it seems like half of the people trundling up and down the aisles are store employees filling orders for customers who won’t even set foot inside. Is the shopping cart on its way out? Maybe. Who wants to tell the SHOPS-AF II team? Not us.
 

Put pneumonia where your mouth is

Getting dentures does not mean the end of dental care. If anything, new research reveals a huge reason for staying on top of one’s denture care: pneumonia.

Pxfuel

It all started with swabs. Scientists in the United Kingdom took mouth, tongue, and denture specimens from frail elderly hospital patients who had pneumonia and wore dentures and from similar patients in care homes who wore dentures and did not have pneumonia. When they compared the microbial populations of the two groups, the investigators found about 20 times the number of respiratory pathogens on the dentures of those with pneumonia.

The research team suggested that dentures may play a role in causing pneumonia, but lead author Josh Twigg, BDS, PhD, also noted that “you certainly couldn’t say that people got pneumonia because they were wearing dentures. It’s just showing that there is an association there.” Improper cleaning, though, could lead to microbial colonization of the dentures, and patients could be inhaling those microbes into their lungs, thereby turning a dental issue into a respiratory issue.

More research needs to be done on the association between dentures and pneumonia, but Dr. Twigg hoped that the results of this study could be presented to the public. The message? “It is important to clean dentures thoroughly” and visit the dentist regularly, he said, but the best way to prevent denture-related infections is to avoid needing to wear dentures entirely.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Today I am going to tell you the single best question you can ask any doctor, the one that has saved my butt countless times throughout my career, the one that every attending physician should be asking every intern and resident when they present a new case. That question: “What else could this be?”

I know, I know – “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.” I get it. But sometimes we get so good at our jobs, so good at recognizing horses, that we stop asking ourselves about zebras at all. You see this in a phenomenon known as “anchoring bias” where physicians, when presented with a diagnosis, tend to latch on to that diagnosis based on the first piece of information given, paying attention to data that support it and ignoring data that point in other directions.

That special question: “What else could this be?”, breaks through that barrier. It forces you, the medical team, everyone, to go through the exercise of real, old-fashioned differential diagnosis. And I promise that if you do this enough, at some point it will save someone’s life.

Though the concept of anchoring bias in medicine is broadly understood, it hasn’t been broadly studied until now, with this study appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Here’s the setup.

The authors hypothesized that there would be substantial anchoring bias when patients with heart failure presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath if the triage “visit reason” section mentioned HF. We’re talking about the subtle difference between the following:

• Visit reason: Shortness of breath
• Visit reason: Shortness of breath/HF

People with HF can be short of breath for lots of reasons. HF exacerbation comes immediately to mind and it should. But there are obviously lots of answers to that “What else could this be?” question: pneumonia, pneumothorax, heart attack, COPD, and, of course, pulmonary embolism (PE).

The authors leveraged the nationwide VA database, allowing them to examine data from over 100,000 patients presenting to various VA EDs with shortness of breath. They then looked for particular tests – D-dimer, CT chest with contrast, V/Q scan, lower-extremity Doppler — that would suggest that the doctor was thinking about PE. The question, then, is whether mentioning HF in that little “visit reason” section would influence the likelihood of testing for PE.

I know what you’re thinking: Not everyone who is short of breath needs an evaluation for PE. And the authors did a nice job accounting for a variety of factors that might predict a PE workup: malignancy, recent surgery, elevated heart rate, low oxygen saturation, etc. Of course, some of those same factors might predict whether that triage nurse will write HF in the visit reason section. All of these things need to be accounted for statistically, and were, but – the unofficial Impact Factor motto reminds us that “there are always more confounders.”

But let’s dig into the results. I’m going to give you the raw numbers first. There were 4,392 people with HF whose visit reason section, in addition to noting shortness of breath, explicitly mentioned HF. Of those, 360 had PE testing and two had a PE diagnosed during that ED visit. So that’s around an 8% testing rate and a 0.5% hit rate for testing. But 43 people, presumably not tested in the ED, had a PE diagnosed within the next 30 days. Assuming that those PEs were present at the ED visit, that means the ED missed 95% of the PEs in the group with that HF label attached to them.

Let’s do the same thing for those whose visit reason just said “shortness of breath.”

Of the 103,627 people in that category, 13,886 were tested for PE and 231 of those tested positive. So that is an overall testing rate of around 13% and a hit rate of 1.7%. And 1,081 of these people had a PE diagnosed within 30 days. Assuming that those PEs were actually present at the ED visit, the docs missed 79% of them.

There’s one other thing to notice from the data: The overall PE rate (diagnosed by 30 days) was basically the same in both groups. That HF label does not really flag a group at lower risk for PE.

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions here, including that all PEs that were actually there in the ED got caught within 30 days, but the numbers do paint a picture. In this unadjusted analysis, it seems that the HF label leads to less testing and more missed PEs. Classic anchoring bias.

The adjusted analysis, accounting for all those PE risk factors, really didn’t change these results. You get nearly the same numbers and thus nearly the same conclusions.

Now, the main missing piece of this puzzle is in the mind of the clinician. We don’t know whether they didn’t consider PE or whether they considered PE but thought it unlikely. And in the end, it’s clear that the vast majority of people in this study did not have PE (though I suspect not all had a simple HF exacerbation). But this type of analysis is useful not only for the empiric evidence of the clinical impact of anchoring bias but because of the fact that it reminds us all to ask that all-important question: What else could this be?

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Today I am going to tell you the single best question you can ask any doctor, the one that has saved my butt countless times throughout my career, the one that every attending physician should be asking every intern and resident when they present a new case. That question: “What else could this be?”

I know, I know – “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.” I get it. But sometimes we get so good at our jobs, so good at recognizing horses, that we stop asking ourselves about zebras at all. You see this in a phenomenon known as “anchoring bias” where physicians, when presented with a diagnosis, tend to latch on to that diagnosis based on the first piece of information given, paying attention to data that support it and ignoring data that point in other directions.

That special question: “What else could this be?”, breaks through that barrier. It forces you, the medical team, everyone, to go through the exercise of real, old-fashioned differential diagnosis. And I promise that if you do this enough, at some point it will save someone’s life.

Though the concept of anchoring bias in medicine is broadly understood, it hasn’t been broadly studied until now, with this study appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Here’s the setup.

The authors hypothesized that there would be substantial anchoring bias when patients with heart failure presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath if the triage “visit reason” section mentioned HF. We’re talking about the subtle difference between the following:

• Visit reason: Shortness of breath
• Visit reason: Shortness of breath/HF

People with HF can be short of breath for lots of reasons. HF exacerbation comes immediately to mind and it should. But there are obviously lots of answers to that “What else could this be?” question: pneumonia, pneumothorax, heart attack, COPD, and, of course, pulmonary embolism (PE).

The authors leveraged the nationwide VA database, allowing them to examine data from over 100,000 patients presenting to various VA EDs with shortness of breath. They then looked for particular tests – D-dimer, CT chest with contrast, V/Q scan, lower-extremity Doppler — that would suggest that the doctor was thinking about PE. The question, then, is whether mentioning HF in that little “visit reason” section would influence the likelihood of testing for PE.

I know what you’re thinking: Not everyone who is short of breath needs an evaluation for PE. And the authors did a nice job accounting for a variety of factors that might predict a PE workup: malignancy, recent surgery, elevated heart rate, low oxygen saturation, etc. Of course, some of those same factors might predict whether that triage nurse will write HF in the visit reason section. All of these things need to be accounted for statistically, and were, but – the unofficial Impact Factor motto reminds us that “there are always more confounders.”

But let’s dig into the results. I’m going to give you the raw numbers first. There were 4,392 people with HF whose visit reason section, in addition to noting shortness of breath, explicitly mentioned HF. Of those, 360 had PE testing and two had a PE diagnosed during that ED visit. So that’s around an 8% testing rate and a 0.5% hit rate for testing. But 43 people, presumably not tested in the ED, had a PE diagnosed within the next 30 days. Assuming that those PEs were present at the ED visit, that means the ED missed 95% of the PEs in the group with that HF label attached to them.

Let’s do the same thing for those whose visit reason just said “shortness of breath.”

Of the 103,627 people in that category, 13,886 were tested for PE and 231 of those tested positive. So that is an overall testing rate of around 13% and a hit rate of 1.7%. And 1,081 of these people had a PE diagnosed within 30 days. Assuming that those PEs were actually present at the ED visit, the docs missed 79% of them.

There’s one other thing to notice from the data: The overall PE rate (diagnosed by 30 days) was basically the same in both groups. That HF label does not really flag a group at lower risk for PE.

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions here, including that all PEs that were actually there in the ED got caught within 30 days, but the numbers do paint a picture. In this unadjusted analysis, it seems that the HF label leads to less testing and more missed PEs. Classic anchoring bias.

The adjusted analysis, accounting for all those PE risk factors, really didn’t change these results. You get nearly the same numbers and thus nearly the same conclusions.

Now, the main missing piece of this puzzle is in the mind of the clinician. We don’t know whether they didn’t consider PE or whether they considered PE but thought it unlikely. And in the end, it’s clear that the vast majority of people in this study did not have PE (though I suspect not all had a simple HF exacerbation). But this type of analysis is useful not only for the empiric evidence of the clinical impact of anchoring bias but because of the fact that it reminds us all to ask that all-important question: What else could this be?

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Today I am going to tell you the single best question you can ask any doctor, the one that has saved my butt countless times throughout my career, the one that every attending physician should be asking every intern and resident when they present a new case. That question: “What else could this be?”

I know, I know – “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.” I get it. But sometimes we get so good at our jobs, so good at recognizing horses, that we stop asking ourselves about zebras at all. You see this in a phenomenon known as “anchoring bias” where physicians, when presented with a diagnosis, tend to latch on to that diagnosis based on the first piece of information given, paying attention to data that support it and ignoring data that point in other directions.

That special question: “What else could this be?”, breaks through that barrier. It forces you, the medical team, everyone, to go through the exercise of real, old-fashioned differential diagnosis. And I promise that if you do this enough, at some point it will save someone’s life.

Though the concept of anchoring bias in medicine is broadly understood, it hasn’t been broadly studied until now, with this study appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Here’s the setup.

The authors hypothesized that there would be substantial anchoring bias when patients with heart failure presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath if the triage “visit reason” section mentioned HF. We’re talking about the subtle difference between the following:

• Visit reason: Shortness of breath
• Visit reason: Shortness of breath/HF

People with HF can be short of breath for lots of reasons. HF exacerbation comes immediately to mind and it should. But there are obviously lots of answers to that “What else could this be?” question: pneumonia, pneumothorax, heart attack, COPD, and, of course, pulmonary embolism (PE).

The authors leveraged the nationwide VA database, allowing them to examine data from over 100,000 patients presenting to various VA EDs with shortness of breath. They then looked for particular tests – D-dimer, CT chest with contrast, V/Q scan, lower-extremity Doppler — that would suggest that the doctor was thinking about PE. The question, then, is whether mentioning HF in that little “visit reason” section would influence the likelihood of testing for PE.

I know what you’re thinking: Not everyone who is short of breath needs an evaluation for PE. And the authors did a nice job accounting for a variety of factors that might predict a PE workup: malignancy, recent surgery, elevated heart rate, low oxygen saturation, etc. Of course, some of those same factors might predict whether that triage nurse will write HF in the visit reason section. All of these things need to be accounted for statistically, and were, but – the unofficial Impact Factor motto reminds us that “there are always more confounders.”

But let’s dig into the results. I’m going to give you the raw numbers first. There were 4,392 people with HF whose visit reason section, in addition to noting shortness of breath, explicitly mentioned HF. Of those, 360 had PE testing and two had a PE diagnosed during that ED visit. So that’s around an 8% testing rate and a 0.5% hit rate for testing. But 43 people, presumably not tested in the ED, had a PE diagnosed within the next 30 days. Assuming that those PEs were present at the ED visit, that means the ED missed 95% of the PEs in the group with that HF label attached to them.

Let’s do the same thing for those whose visit reason just said “shortness of breath.”

Of the 103,627 people in that category, 13,886 were tested for PE and 231 of those tested positive. So that is an overall testing rate of around 13% and a hit rate of 1.7%. And 1,081 of these people had a PE diagnosed within 30 days. Assuming that those PEs were actually present at the ED visit, the docs missed 79% of them.

There’s one other thing to notice from the data: The overall PE rate (diagnosed by 30 days) was basically the same in both groups. That HF label does not really flag a group at lower risk for PE.

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions here, including that all PEs that were actually there in the ED got caught within 30 days, but the numbers do paint a picture. In this unadjusted analysis, it seems that the HF label leads to less testing and more missed PEs. Classic anchoring bias.

The adjusted analysis, accounting for all those PE risk factors, really didn’t change these results. You get nearly the same numbers and thus nearly the same conclusions.

Now, the main missing piece of this puzzle is in the mind of the clinician. We don’t know whether they didn’t consider PE or whether they considered PE but thought it unlikely. And in the end, it’s clear that the vast majority of people in this study did not have PE (though I suspect not all had a simple HF exacerbation). But this type of analysis is useful not only for the empiric evidence of the clinical impact of anchoring bias but because of the fact that it reminds us all to ask that all-important question: What else could this be?

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

New data suggest a significantly stronger link in women compared with men between atrial fibrillation (AF) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia.

“Our findings imply that women with AF may be at higher risk for MCI and dementia with potentially more rapid disease progression from normal cognition to MCI or dementia than women without AF or men with and without AF,” wrote authors of a new study led by Kathryn A. Wood, PhD, RN, Neil Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University in Atlanta.

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Researchers used the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center data with 43,630 patients and analyzed sex differences between men and women with AF and their performance on neuropsychological tests and cognitive disease progression.

Higher odds of dementia, MCI in women

According to the paper, AF is associated with higher odds of dementia (odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-7.37) in women and MCI in women (OR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.55-7.55) compared with men.

Women with AF and normal cognition at baseline had a higher risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.50) from normal to MCI and from MCI to vascular dementia (HR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.89-5.65) than that of men with AF or men and women without AF. 

AF is a major public health problem linked with stroke and heart failure, and is an independent risk factor of increased mortality. It is associated with higher risk of cognitive impairment and dementia independent of stroke history.
 

Cognitive screening for AF patients

The authors wrote that cognitive screening, especially in women, should be part of yearly cardiology visits for patients with AF to help identify early those at highest risk for cognitive disease.

T. Jared Bunch, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah in Salt Lake City, said in an interview, “We have learned that how we treat atrial fibrillation can influence risk.”

First, he said, outcomes, including brain health, are better when rhythm control approaches are used within the first year of diagnosis. 

“Restoring a normal heart rhythm improves brain perfusion and cognitive function. Next, aggressive rhythm control – such as catheter ablation – is associated with much lower long-term risks of dementia in the [patients].  Finally, early and effective use of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation lowers risk of stroke, dementia, and cognitive decline.”
 

Several factors unknown

Dr. Bunch said there are some unknowns in the study, such as how long patients were in atrial fibrillation. 

He said one way to address the inequities is to refer women earlier as women are often referred later in disease to specialty care, which can have consequences.

He said it is not known how many people underwent early and effective rhythm control. 

“Women also are less likely to receive catheter ablation, a cardioversion, or be placed on antiarrhythmic drugs,” said Dr. Bunch, who was not part of the study. “These also represent potential opportunities to improve outcomes by treating the rhythm in a similar and aggressive manner in both men and women.”

Also unknown is how many people were on effective oral anticoagulation, Dr. Bunch noted.

The study importantly highlights a significant problem surrounding the care of women with AF, he said, but there are strategies to improve outcomes.

In addition to earlier screening and referral for women, providers should recognize that men and women may present differently with different AF symptoms. He added that physicians should offer catheter ablation, the most effective treatment, equally to men and women who are candidates.

In all people, he said, it’s important “to start anticoagulation very early in the disease to lower the risk of micro- and macrothrombotic events that lead to poor brain health and function.”

The study authors and Dr. Bunch declared no relevant financial relationships.

New data suggest a significantly stronger link in women compared with men between atrial fibrillation (AF) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia.

“Our findings imply that women with AF may be at higher risk for MCI and dementia with potentially more rapid disease progression from normal cognition to MCI or dementia than women without AF or men with and without AF,” wrote authors of a new study led by Kathryn A. Wood, PhD, RN, Neil Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University in Atlanta.

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Researchers used the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center data with 43,630 patients and analyzed sex differences between men and women with AF and their performance on neuropsychological tests and cognitive disease progression.

Higher odds of dementia, MCI in women

According to the paper, AF is associated with higher odds of dementia (odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-7.37) in women and MCI in women (OR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.55-7.55) compared with men.

Women with AF and normal cognition at baseline had a higher risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.50) from normal to MCI and from MCI to vascular dementia (HR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.89-5.65) than that of men with AF or men and women without AF. 

AF is a major public health problem linked with stroke and heart failure, and is an independent risk factor of increased mortality. It is associated with higher risk of cognitive impairment and dementia independent of stroke history.
 

Cognitive screening for AF patients

The authors wrote that cognitive screening, especially in women, should be part of yearly cardiology visits for patients with AF to help identify early those at highest risk for cognitive disease.

T. Jared Bunch, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah in Salt Lake City, said in an interview, “We have learned that how we treat atrial fibrillation can influence risk.”

First, he said, outcomes, including brain health, are better when rhythm control approaches are used within the first year of diagnosis. 

“Restoring a normal heart rhythm improves brain perfusion and cognitive function. Next, aggressive rhythm control – such as catheter ablation – is associated with much lower long-term risks of dementia in the [patients].  Finally, early and effective use of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation lowers risk of stroke, dementia, and cognitive decline.”
 

Several factors unknown

Dr. Bunch said there are some unknowns in the study, such as how long patients were in atrial fibrillation. 

He said one way to address the inequities is to refer women earlier as women are often referred later in disease to specialty care, which can have consequences.

He said it is not known how many people underwent early and effective rhythm control. 

“Women also are less likely to receive catheter ablation, a cardioversion, or be placed on antiarrhythmic drugs,” said Dr. Bunch, who was not part of the study. “These also represent potential opportunities to improve outcomes by treating the rhythm in a similar and aggressive manner in both men and women.”

Also unknown is how many people were on effective oral anticoagulation, Dr. Bunch noted.

The study importantly highlights a significant problem surrounding the care of women with AF, he said, but there are strategies to improve outcomes.

In addition to earlier screening and referral for women, providers should recognize that men and women may present differently with different AF symptoms. He added that physicians should offer catheter ablation, the most effective treatment, equally to men and women who are candidates.

In all people, he said, it’s important “to start anticoagulation very early in the disease to lower the risk of micro- and macrothrombotic events that lead to poor brain health and function.”

The study authors and Dr. Bunch declared no relevant financial relationships.

New data suggest a significantly stronger link in women compared with men between atrial fibrillation (AF) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia.

“Our findings imply that women with AF may be at higher risk for MCI and dementia with potentially more rapid disease progression from normal cognition to MCI or dementia than women without AF or men with and without AF,” wrote authors of a new study led by Kathryn A. Wood, PhD, RN, Neil Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University in Atlanta.

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Researchers used the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center data with 43,630 patients and analyzed sex differences between men and women with AF and their performance on neuropsychological tests and cognitive disease progression.

Higher odds of dementia, MCI in women

According to the paper, AF is associated with higher odds of dementia (odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-7.37) in women and MCI in women (OR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.55-7.55) compared with men.

Women with AF and normal cognition at baseline had a higher risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.50) from normal to MCI and from MCI to vascular dementia (HR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.89-5.65) than that of men with AF or men and women without AF. 

AF is a major public health problem linked with stroke and heart failure, and is an independent risk factor of increased mortality. It is associated with higher risk of cognitive impairment and dementia independent of stroke history.
 

Cognitive screening for AF patients

The authors wrote that cognitive screening, especially in women, should be part of yearly cardiology visits for patients with AF to help identify early those at highest risk for cognitive disease.

T. Jared Bunch, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah in Salt Lake City, said in an interview, “We have learned that how we treat atrial fibrillation can influence risk.”

First, he said, outcomes, including brain health, are better when rhythm control approaches are used within the first year of diagnosis. 

“Restoring a normal heart rhythm improves brain perfusion and cognitive function. Next, aggressive rhythm control – such as catheter ablation – is associated with much lower long-term risks of dementia in the [patients].  Finally, early and effective use of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation lowers risk of stroke, dementia, and cognitive decline.”
 

Several factors unknown

Dr. Bunch said there are some unknowns in the study, such as how long patients were in atrial fibrillation. 

He said one way to address the inequities is to refer women earlier as women are often referred later in disease to specialty care, which can have consequences.

He said it is not known how many people underwent early and effective rhythm control. 

“Women also are less likely to receive catheter ablation, a cardioversion, or be placed on antiarrhythmic drugs,” said Dr. Bunch, who was not part of the study. “These also represent potential opportunities to improve outcomes by treating the rhythm in a similar and aggressive manner in both men and women.”

Also unknown is how many people were on effective oral anticoagulation, Dr. Bunch noted.

The study importantly highlights a significant problem surrounding the care of women with AF, he said, but there are strategies to improve outcomes.

In addition to earlier screening and referral for women, providers should recognize that men and women may present differently with different AF symptoms. He added that physicians should offer catheter ablation, the most effective treatment, equally to men and women who are candidates.

In all people, he said, it’s important “to start anticoagulation very early in the disease to lower the risk of micro- and macrothrombotic events that lead to poor brain health and function.”

The study authors and Dr. Bunch declared no relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – A new analysis of a large-scale trial of a novel lipid-lowering agent has shown a particularly large reduction in cardiovascular events in the primary prevention population enrolled in the study, two-thirds of whom also had type 2 diabetes, leading to calls for more attention to be paid to this group of patients.

The main results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) in a mixed secondary and primary prevention population intolerant to statins, presented in March at the 2023 joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, showed a 13% relative risk reduction in the main primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization.

This new analysis of the 4,206 high-risk primary prevention patients in the study – 67% of whom also had type 2 diabetes – has shown a 30% relative risk reduction in the same endpoint.

Other key endpoints were reduced to a similar or even greater extent, with the composite of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI showing a 36% relative risk reduction, and a 39% relative risk reduction for cardiovascular death and MI individually.

“These results are frankly striking,” lead investigator Steve Nissen, MD, said in an interview. 

“These are really large reductions. These results are telling us that high-risk primary prevention patients, although their absolute event rate is lower than secondary prevention patients, can have very impressive relative risk reductions in major cardiovascular events with lipid-lowering therapy,” he said.

But Dr. Nissen, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, pointed out that this population of patients is not well treated. 

“This is the problem: Less than half of high-risk primary prevention patients in the U.S., and in virtually every other developed country, are receiving cholesterol-lowering medication. These patients tend to get ignored,” he stressed. 

Asked what advice he would give to clinicians based on the current findings, Dr. Nissen said: “If a patient is at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, particularly those with [type 2] diabetes, they need to go on a lipid-lowering drug.” 

“If patients can tolerate a statin then that should be the first choice. We know statins work, and they are now inexpensive. They are likely to give the exact same benefit as we have shown in this study with bempedoic acid, as the two drug classes work by very similar mechanisms. But if patients can’t tolerate a statin, then treat them with bempedoic acid. The bottom line is that these patients just need to be treated,” he said.
 

‘Wake-up call’

He said these new results are a “wake-up call for the medical community that we need to pay far more attention to high-risk primary prevention patients.”

Dr. Nissen does not believe the effect is specific to bempedoic acid; rather, it is more likely an effect of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. 

“This message is not about bempedoic acid, in particular. We have seen similar findings in historical studies with the statins, but that seems to have been forgotten. The message is about lowering LDL in patients who are at high risk of having a first cardiovascular event. We need to identify patients at high risk for a first cardiac event and get them on a cholesterol-lowering drug – and in most cases that will be a statin.”

Dr. Nissen presented the new analysis from the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. It was simultaneously published online in JAMA.

He pointed out that large trials of lipid-lowering therapy in the primary prevention population have not been done for many years. 

“All the contemporary trials with lipid-lowering therapy have only included secondary prevention patients and they often enroll patients after an acute coronary syndrome event.

“But for the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial, we included a significant amount of primary prevention patients – those with risk factors such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension who are considered to be at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” he explained.

CLEAR OUTCOMES was a masked, randomized, trial that enrolled 13,970 statin-intolerant patients. The new analysis included 4,206 of those patients with risk factors for heart disease but without a prior cardiovascular event – the primary prevention group. The mean age of these participants was 68 years, 67% had diabetes, and 59% were women.

Treatment with bempedoic acid showed a 22% reduction in LDL-C, compared with placebo, with a reduction of 30.2 mg/dL from a mean baseline of 142.5 mg/dL. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also reduced by 0.56 mg/L (21.5%), from a median baseline of 2.4 mg/L.

Dr. Nissen told a press briefing at the ADA meeting that he believes “it’s the combination of LDL lowering and reduction in CRP that might have been the driver [for the effects we saw in the trial]. Certainly, bempedoic acid lowers both.”

And he noted the recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that works along the same pathways as statins but does not cause muscle pain, which makes many people intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established ASCVD who require additional LDL-C lowering.
 

Greater benefit in primary prevention?

In this primary prevention group, treatment with bempedoic acid for 40 months was associated with a significant risk reduction for the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization – which occurred in 5.3% of the treatment group versus 7.6% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .002). This represents a 30% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events.

Other key secondary endpoints also showed impressive reductions.

The rate of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was 6.4% in the placebo group and 4.0% with bempedoic acid (HR, 0.64; P < .001); MI occurred in 2.2% versus 1.4% (HR, 0.61), cardiovascular death in 3.1% versus 1.8% (HR, 0.61), and all-cause mortality in 5.2% versus 3.6% (HR, 0.73), respectively.

Adverse effects with bempedoic acid included a higher incidence of gout (2.6% vs 2.0%), cholelithiasis (2.5% vs. 1.1%), and increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

Dr. Nissen believed these results suggest that there may be a greater benefit of lipid lowering in high-risk primary prevention patients than in the secondary prevention population.

“It may seem paradoxical, but there is actually some history that this may be the case,” he said.

He pointed out that the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin in 2008 was the last major primary prevention trial of a lipid-lowering agent, which was stopped early with a 44% reduction of the primary endpoint.

He noted that one of the arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention is the belief that absolute risk reductions are quite modest.

“But in this analysis, we found an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% for the primary endpoint. That’s a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event of 43. That’s pretty good,” he said.

Trying to explain why there may be more benefit in the primary prevention population, Dr. Nissen suggested that these patients may have more vulnerable plaques.

“I think high-risk primary prevention patients probably have a lot of lipid-laden plaque – some people call it ‘vulnerable’ plaque. These are softer, cholesterol-laden plaque. We know that treatment with cholesterol-lowering medication causes these plaques to shrink. The lipid core is delipidated and the plaque stabilizes,” he explained. “It may be that in secondary prevention patients to some extent the horse is already out of the barn – they have advanced disease. But primary prevention patients may have plaques that are more amenable to modification by cholesterol lowering.”

He admitted that the idea is only speculation. “But that is a potential explanation for our observations.”
 

Editorial cautious

In an accompanying editorial, also published in JAMA, Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the findings need to be interpreted with caution as they come from one of many subgroup analyses of a larger trial.

Dr. Kazi pointed out that the intervention and control survival curves separate right away, on the first day of follow-up, whereas the true effect of lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention would be expected to have a somewhat delayed onset, an observation he says supports the argument that this is a chance finding.

Dr. Kazi also reminded clinicians that bempedoic acid should not be regarded as a substitute for statins, which should remain the first-line therapy for primary prevention.

“For now, available evidence suggests that, although bempedoic acid is not a perfect substitute for a statin, it is a reasonable therapeutic choice for primary prevention of ASCVD events in high-risk, statin-intolerant patients,” he concluded.

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

SAN DIEGO – A new analysis of a large-scale trial of a novel lipid-lowering agent has shown a particularly large reduction in cardiovascular events in the primary prevention population enrolled in the study, two-thirds of whom also had type 2 diabetes, leading to calls for more attention to be paid to this group of patients.

The main results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) in a mixed secondary and primary prevention population intolerant to statins, presented in March at the 2023 joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, showed a 13% relative risk reduction in the main primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization.

This new analysis of the 4,206 high-risk primary prevention patients in the study – 67% of whom also had type 2 diabetes – has shown a 30% relative risk reduction in the same endpoint.

Other key endpoints were reduced to a similar or even greater extent, with the composite of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI showing a 36% relative risk reduction, and a 39% relative risk reduction for cardiovascular death and MI individually.

“These results are frankly striking,” lead investigator Steve Nissen, MD, said in an interview. 

“These are really large reductions. These results are telling us that high-risk primary prevention patients, although their absolute event rate is lower than secondary prevention patients, can have very impressive relative risk reductions in major cardiovascular events with lipid-lowering therapy,” he said.

But Dr. Nissen, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, pointed out that this population of patients is not well treated. 

“This is the problem: Less than half of high-risk primary prevention patients in the U.S., and in virtually every other developed country, are receiving cholesterol-lowering medication. These patients tend to get ignored,” he stressed. 

Asked what advice he would give to clinicians based on the current findings, Dr. Nissen said: “If a patient is at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, particularly those with [type 2] diabetes, they need to go on a lipid-lowering drug.” 

“If patients can tolerate a statin then that should be the first choice. We know statins work, and they are now inexpensive. They are likely to give the exact same benefit as we have shown in this study with bempedoic acid, as the two drug classes work by very similar mechanisms. But if patients can’t tolerate a statin, then treat them with bempedoic acid. The bottom line is that these patients just need to be treated,” he said.
 

‘Wake-up call’

He said these new results are a “wake-up call for the medical community that we need to pay far more attention to high-risk primary prevention patients.”

Dr. Nissen does not believe the effect is specific to bempedoic acid; rather, it is more likely an effect of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. 

“This message is not about bempedoic acid, in particular. We have seen similar findings in historical studies with the statins, but that seems to have been forgotten. The message is about lowering LDL in patients who are at high risk of having a first cardiovascular event. We need to identify patients at high risk for a first cardiac event and get them on a cholesterol-lowering drug – and in most cases that will be a statin.”

Dr. Nissen presented the new analysis from the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. It was simultaneously published online in JAMA.

He pointed out that large trials of lipid-lowering therapy in the primary prevention population have not been done for many years. 

“All the contemporary trials with lipid-lowering therapy have only included secondary prevention patients and they often enroll patients after an acute coronary syndrome event.

“But for the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial, we included a significant amount of primary prevention patients – those with risk factors such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension who are considered to be at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” he explained.

CLEAR OUTCOMES was a masked, randomized, trial that enrolled 13,970 statin-intolerant patients. The new analysis included 4,206 of those patients with risk factors for heart disease but without a prior cardiovascular event – the primary prevention group. The mean age of these participants was 68 years, 67% had diabetes, and 59% were women.

Treatment with bempedoic acid showed a 22% reduction in LDL-C, compared with placebo, with a reduction of 30.2 mg/dL from a mean baseline of 142.5 mg/dL. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also reduced by 0.56 mg/L (21.5%), from a median baseline of 2.4 mg/L.

Dr. Nissen told a press briefing at the ADA meeting that he believes “it’s the combination of LDL lowering and reduction in CRP that might have been the driver [for the effects we saw in the trial]. Certainly, bempedoic acid lowers both.”

And he noted the recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that works along the same pathways as statins but does not cause muscle pain, which makes many people intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established ASCVD who require additional LDL-C lowering.
 

Greater benefit in primary prevention?

In this primary prevention group, treatment with bempedoic acid for 40 months was associated with a significant risk reduction for the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization – which occurred in 5.3% of the treatment group versus 7.6% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .002). This represents a 30% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events.

Other key secondary endpoints also showed impressive reductions.

The rate of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was 6.4% in the placebo group and 4.0% with bempedoic acid (HR, 0.64; P < .001); MI occurred in 2.2% versus 1.4% (HR, 0.61), cardiovascular death in 3.1% versus 1.8% (HR, 0.61), and all-cause mortality in 5.2% versus 3.6% (HR, 0.73), respectively.

Adverse effects with bempedoic acid included a higher incidence of gout (2.6% vs 2.0%), cholelithiasis (2.5% vs. 1.1%), and increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

Dr. Nissen believed these results suggest that there may be a greater benefit of lipid lowering in high-risk primary prevention patients than in the secondary prevention population.

“It may seem paradoxical, but there is actually some history that this may be the case,” he said.

He pointed out that the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin in 2008 was the last major primary prevention trial of a lipid-lowering agent, which was stopped early with a 44% reduction of the primary endpoint.

He noted that one of the arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention is the belief that absolute risk reductions are quite modest.

“But in this analysis, we found an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% for the primary endpoint. That’s a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event of 43. That’s pretty good,” he said.

Trying to explain why there may be more benefit in the primary prevention population, Dr. Nissen suggested that these patients may have more vulnerable plaques.

“I think high-risk primary prevention patients probably have a lot of lipid-laden plaque – some people call it ‘vulnerable’ plaque. These are softer, cholesterol-laden plaque. We know that treatment with cholesterol-lowering medication causes these plaques to shrink. The lipid core is delipidated and the plaque stabilizes,” he explained. “It may be that in secondary prevention patients to some extent the horse is already out of the barn – they have advanced disease. But primary prevention patients may have plaques that are more amenable to modification by cholesterol lowering.”

He admitted that the idea is only speculation. “But that is a potential explanation for our observations.”
 

Editorial cautious

In an accompanying editorial, also published in JAMA, Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the findings need to be interpreted with caution as they come from one of many subgroup analyses of a larger trial.

Dr. Kazi pointed out that the intervention and control survival curves separate right away, on the first day of follow-up, whereas the true effect of lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention would be expected to have a somewhat delayed onset, an observation he says supports the argument that this is a chance finding.

Dr. Kazi also reminded clinicians that bempedoic acid should not be regarded as a substitute for statins, which should remain the first-line therapy for primary prevention.

“For now, available evidence suggests that, although bempedoic acid is not a perfect substitute for a statin, it is a reasonable therapeutic choice for primary prevention of ASCVD events in high-risk, statin-intolerant patients,” he concluded.

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

SAN DIEGO – A new analysis of a large-scale trial of a novel lipid-lowering agent has shown a particularly large reduction in cardiovascular events in the primary prevention population enrolled in the study, two-thirds of whom also had type 2 diabetes, leading to calls for more attention to be paid to this group of patients.

The main results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) in a mixed secondary and primary prevention population intolerant to statins, presented in March at the 2023 joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, showed a 13% relative risk reduction in the main primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization.

This new analysis of the 4,206 high-risk primary prevention patients in the study – 67% of whom also had type 2 diabetes – has shown a 30% relative risk reduction in the same endpoint.

Other key endpoints were reduced to a similar or even greater extent, with the composite of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI showing a 36% relative risk reduction, and a 39% relative risk reduction for cardiovascular death and MI individually.

“These results are frankly striking,” lead investigator Steve Nissen, MD, said in an interview. 

“These are really large reductions. These results are telling us that high-risk primary prevention patients, although their absolute event rate is lower than secondary prevention patients, can have very impressive relative risk reductions in major cardiovascular events with lipid-lowering therapy,” he said.

But Dr. Nissen, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, pointed out that this population of patients is not well treated. 

“This is the problem: Less than half of high-risk primary prevention patients in the U.S., and in virtually every other developed country, are receiving cholesterol-lowering medication. These patients tend to get ignored,” he stressed. 

Asked what advice he would give to clinicians based on the current findings, Dr. Nissen said: “If a patient is at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, particularly those with [type 2] diabetes, they need to go on a lipid-lowering drug.” 

“If patients can tolerate a statin then that should be the first choice. We know statins work, and they are now inexpensive. They are likely to give the exact same benefit as we have shown in this study with bempedoic acid, as the two drug classes work by very similar mechanisms. But if patients can’t tolerate a statin, then treat them with bempedoic acid. The bottom line is that these patients just need to be treated,” he said.
 

‘Wake-up call’

He said these new results are a “wake-up call for the medical community that we need to pay far more attention to high-risk primary prevention patients.”

Dr. Nissen does not believe the effect is specific to bempedoic acid; rather, it is more likely an effect of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. 

“This message is not about bempedoic acid, in particular. We have seen similar findings in historical studies with the statins, but that seems to have been forgotten. The message is about lowering LDL in patients who are at high risk of having a first cardiovascular event. We need to identify patients at high risk for a first cardiac event and get them on a cholesterol-lowering drug – and in most cases that will be a statin.”

Dr. Nissen presented the new analysis from the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. It was simultaneously published online in JAMA.

He pointed out that large trials of lipid-lowering therapy in the primary prevention population have not been done for many years. 

“All the contemporary trials with lipid-lowering therapy have only included secondary prevention patients and they often enroll patients after an acute coronary syndrome event.

“But for the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial, we included a significant amount of primary prevention patients – those with risk factors such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension who are considered to be at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” he explained.

CLEAR OUTCOMES was a masked, randomized, trial that enrolled 13,970 statin-intolerant patients. The new analysis included 4,206 of those patients with risk factors for heart disease but without a prior cardiovascular event – the primary prevention group. The mean age of these participants was 68 years, 67% had diabetes, and 59% were women.

Treatment with bempedoic acid showed a 22% reduction in LDL-C, compared with placebo, with a reduction of 30.2 mg/dL from a mean baseline of 142.5 mg/dL. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also reduced by 0.56 mg/L (21.5%), from a median baseline of 2.4 mg/L.

Dr. Nissen told a press briefing at the ADA meeting that he believes “it’s the combination of LDL lowering and reduction in CRP that might have been the driver [for the effects we saw in the trial]. Certainly, bempedoic acid lowers both.”

And he noted the recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that works along the same pathways as statins but does not cause muscle pain, which makes many people intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established ASCVD who require additional LDL-C lowering.
 

Greater benefit in primary prevention?

In this primary prevention group, treatment with bempedoic acid for 40 months was associated with a significant risk reduction for the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization – which occurred in 5.3% of the treatment group versus 7.6% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .002). This represents a 30% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events.

Other key secondary endpoints also showed impressive reductions.

The rate of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was 6.4% in the placebo group and 4.0% with bempedoic acid (HR, 0.64; P < .001); MI occurred in 2.2% versus 1.4% (HR, 0.61), cardiovascular death in 3.1% versus 1.8% (HR, 0.61), and all-cause mortality in 5.2% versus 3.6% (HR, 0.73), respectively.

Adverse effects with bempedoic acid included a higher incidence of gout (2.6% vs 2.0%), cholelithiasis (2.5% vs. 1.1%), and increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

Dr. Nissen believed these results suggest that there may be a greater benefit of lipid lowering in high-risk primary prevention patients than in the secondary prevention population.

“It may seem paradoxical, but there is actually some history that this may be the case,” he said.

He pointed out that the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin in 2008 was the last major primary prevention trial of a lipid-lowering agent, which was stopped early with a 44% reduction of the primary endpoint.

He noted that one of the arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention is the belief that absolute risk reductions are quite modest.

“But in this analysis, we found an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% for the primary endpoint. That’s a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event of 43. That’s pretty good,” he said.

Trying to explain why there may be more benefit in the primary prevention population, Dr. Nissen suggested that these patients may have more vulnerable plaques.

“I think high-risk primary prevention patients probably have a lot of lipid-laden plaque – some people call it ‘vulnerable’ plaque. These are softer, cholesterol-laden plaque. We know that treatment with cholesterol-lowering medication causes these plaques to shrink. The lipid core is delipidated and the plaque stabilizes,” he explained. “It may be that in secondary prevention patients to some extent the horse is already out of the barn – they have advanced disease. But primary prevention patients may have plaques that are more amenable to modification by cholesterol lowering.”

He admitted that the idea is only speculation. “But that is a potential explanation for our observations.”
 

Editorial cautious

In an accompanying editorial, also published in JAMA, Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the findings need to be interpreted with caution as they come from one of many subgroup analyses of a larger trial.

Dr. Kazi pointed out that the intervention and control survival curves separate right away, on the first day of follow-up, whereas the true effect of lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention would be expected to have a somewhat delayed onset, an observation he says supports the argument that this is a chance finding.

Dr. Kazi also reminded clinicians that bempedoic acid should not be regarded as a substitute for statins, which should remain the first-line therapy for primary prevention.

“For now, available evidence suggests that, although bempedoic acid is not a perfect substitute for a statin, it is a reasonable therapeutic choice for primary prevention of ASCVD events in high-risk, statin-intolerant patients,” he concluded.

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

The recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco; Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

The Food and Drug Administration granted colchicine a very broad label: to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in adult patients with established ASCVD or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. But how will the drug be used in clinical practice?

“The idea of inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk has been around for decades, and it is very well known that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process. However, treating inflammation is new as we haven’t had a specific agent targeting inflammation before, noted Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, director of clinical research, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Dr. Blaha, who has been an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha, added that the approval of low-dose colchicine “will open the door toward having a routine conversation about residual inflammatory risk in our patients; and we need to work out exactly how we do that.”

Dr. Blaha is not surprised by the FDA-approved indication for colchicine, pointing out that the main large-scale trial supporting its use in ASCVD, the LoDoCo-2 trial, included a similar broad population.

“I think the approval was appropriate as the indication should always follow the data. But I think how the drug will actually be used will depend on the context for different individual patients,” he said.

“The paradigm coming forward is the idea of residual risk that patients have after they been treated with the standard of care – which in most cases is a statin and blood pressure control – and what is driving that residual risk,” he noted. “If we think patients are still at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, we have to think what we will do next. This is where this drug will come in.”

Dr. Blaha pointed out that there are now multiple options for reducing residual risk; he believes that it will depend on the profile of the patient as to which of those options is chosen first.

“If after high-dose statin treatment they still have raised LDL, then we can add another LDL lowering drug; or it might be diabetes and obesity that we want to address first; or elevated triglycerides. But now, we can also consider residual inflammatory risk if we think the patient has residual plaque inflammation,” he said. “So, colchicine will be one of several choices beyond a statin that we can think about as the next step for treating residual risk.”
 

Is CRP measurement necessary?

Though elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is a marker of inflammation in ASCVD, the two main trials of colchicine in ASCVD, both of which showed large benefits of the drug, did not measure hsCRP, leading to questions as to whether measurement of this biomarker is necessary to select patients for colchicine treatment.

“Some clinicians will favor testing hsCRP and treating those with levels above 2 mg/L. I think that’s very reasonable,” Dr. Blaha said. “However, because hsCRP was not measured in the trials, I don’t think testing for this biomarker is mandatory to establish that there is inflammation,” he added.

“The label does not stipulate that CRP has to be measured. It is giving physicians latitude; they can measure CRP, or they don’t have to.”

Dr. Blaha added that clinicians need to think about what is driving residual risk in each individual patient: “If you think their other risk factors are well controlled but they are still having recurrent events, then we can consider colchicine as a way of reducing their residual risk which is likely being caused by inflammation.

“We are at a great place in cardiovascular medicine as we have several different options to use after a statin, and now we have this new therapy targeted at inflammation as well. While we can use all these options together, I think most clinicians will want to prioritize therapies by using the ones that they believe will reduce the residual risk the most in each individual patient,” Dr. Blaha explained.
 

‘An entire other axis driving atherosclerosis’

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, is one of the major players in the cardiovascular inflammation field and has helped develop hsCRP testing. He has similar views.

“This FDA approval is extremely important, as it will draw attention to the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and the need to treat it,” he said.

“Physicians need to be aware that, yes, we need to lower cholesterol aggressively, but they also need to know that there is an entire other axis driving atherosclerosis – and that is inflammation. And until now, we haven’t had an FDA-approved drug to treat inflammation.”

Dr. Ridker stressed that he doesn’t want to undermine lowering lipids: “Therapies aimed at inflammation are not in competition with those aimed at lipid lowering. We know lipid lowering works. But now we have another approach as well. The challenge here is educating physicians on this new approach.”

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low-dose colchicine for patients whom he refers to as “frequent flyers”; those who keep coming back despite aggressive lipid lowering. “They have multiple angioplasties, bypass surgery, etc.”

Like Dr. Blaha, Dr. Ridker thinks that doctors should start using this drug in high-risk patients who are already on a statin and who have residual inflammatory risk: “[The] patient whose underlying biologic problem is inflammation [is whom] we really want to treat with this drug. That is where it is most likely to be highly effective and where the comfort level will be the greatest.”

He said that measurement of hsCRP is an appropriate way to select these patients.

“I think this is a great impetus to start having much wider CRP measurement so we can actually target this anti-inflammatory drug to the patients with residual inflammatory risk – those with hsCRP level above 2 mg/L,” he said, estimating that this could apply to around 30%-40% of patients with ASCVD who are already taking a statin.
 

A second pillar of ASCVD treatment?

A somewhat different view is held by Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Research Centre at the Montréal Heart Institute, Canada, who was the lead investigator of the other randomized controlled trial of colchicine in heart disease, the COLCOT trial.

He said that colchicine should become the “second pillar” of ASCVD treatment, along with statins, for almost all patients.

Tardif referred to the recent study (led by Dr. Ridker) in The Lancet, which showed that among patients who are already on a statin, those with high inflammation levels had the highest risk for future events.

“So, the next step after a statin has to be to consider inflammation reduction,” he said.

“Despite all the drugs we have, ASCVD remains the leading cause of death in the Western world. What drives these events is largely inflammation, so it makes sense to directly tackle reduction of inflammation in the vessel, with a drug like colchicine,” he noted.

“I would say all patients with coronary atherosclerosis are potential candidates for low-dose colchicine as long as they do not have severe kidney disease, which is a contraindication,” Dr. Tardif said.

“If you want to fine tune this a bit more, those that are at particular risk are those that have recurrent events, those with multiple risk factors, and those with a recent [myocardial infarction]. In these patients, it would make a lot of sense to add low-dose colchicine to high-dose statins,” he added.

Dr. Tardif said he is not going to use CRP measurements to select patients for colchicine treatment: “Although measuring CRP may make sense intuitively, both large, randomized trials of colchicine did not select patients based on raised CRP, and they showed a benefit across the board.

If I consider a patient with ASCVD to be at high risk of future events and they are already on a statin I’m going to consider colchicine in all these patients, as long as they don’t have severe kidney disease.”

Dr. Tardif said that ASCVD needs to follow the model of heart failure which has several pillars of treatment directed at different targets that are all used together.

“I think we should apply the same approach to patients with ASCVD,” he added. “Yes, we need to hit the cholesterol with a statin, but we can now also hit the inflammation with colchicine.”
 

Polypharmacy concerns

Steve Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the colchicine trials, is also enthusiastic about use of colchicine. But like Dr. Ridker and Dr. Blaha, he favors selecting patients who are likely to benefit the most.

“I have been an advocate of the inflammatory hypothesis for many years, and we have been on a quest for a pure anti-inflammatory therapy that we can add to the standard treatment of patients with coronary disease. And colchicine has the safety and efficacy to do this,” Dr. Nissen said.

“What colchicine offers here is an inexpensive drug with pretty good data on reduction in morbidity from coronary disease. It has a completely different mechanism, so its benefit is likely to be additive to statins. I think we could probably do a lot of good at very little expense by just using these two therapies,” he said.

“But at present my preference will be to use colchicine selectively in those with raised CRP. I think that’s logical. I’m just worried about polypharmacy. Some of my patients are already on five, six, or seven meds. I need to have a reason to add an additional drug, and I’m not sure if we really analyze this carefully that patients with a low CRP would derive the same benefit. They might do, but I doubt it,” he noted.

“There may be further research and analyses that help us understand the relationship between CRP and efficacy of colchicine, and that may help us figure this out,” he added.
 

Safety is reassuring

In terms of safety and tolerability of the 0.5-mg colchicine dose, the experts seem to think that this is very manageable.

“When used for gout or pericarditis, colchicine is generally given at a dose of 0.6 mg twice a day and this can cause a lot of gastrointestinal [GI] side effects,” Dr. Nissen said. “But the low dose approved for ASCVD – 0.5 mg once a day – appears to be much better tolerated. There are some GI side effects, but these are not intolerable, and they generally go away with time.”

Dr. Ridker added that in the randomized trials, the adverse effects were “quite minimal,” but, “that being said, this drug is not to be used in severe kidney or liver disease, and there are some drug interactions that we need to be aware of. But in general, side effects are rare with the low dose. There may be some GI effects but they are mainly mild and you can generally treat through them.”

Dr. Blaha agreed that this is not a drug for patients with advanced kidney disease, “and there are some drug interactions that we have to be mindful of, but the list is not so long. There is a signal of modest gastrointestinal and muscle side effects, but most patients will be able to take it without issues. Because it’s already used in gout, physicians are already quite comfortable with its use.”
 

Part of the backbone of CV treatment?

Concluding, Dr. Blaha said he believes that prescribing of colchicine will start with cardiologists who will use it in their highest-risk patients first.

“But as we become comfortable with it, I think we will start using it in a broader range of patients and eventually primary care doctors will start prescribing it – much like what has happened with the statins,” he suggested.

“Where it sits along with statins in the future will be very interesting to see, but I think some people can envision it being up there with statins as part of the backbone of cardiovascular treatment in future.”

Dr. Tardif holds patents on methods for using low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction, licensed to Montreal Heart Institute. Dr. Ridker is a consultant to Agepha and has research grants from Novo Nordisk related to the development of alternative anti-inflammatory therapies for atherosclerotic disease. Dr. Blaha reports being an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha Pharma.

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

The recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco; Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

The Food and Drug Administration granted colchicine a very broad label: to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in adult patients with established ASCVD or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. But how will the drug be used in clinical practice?

“The idea of inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk has been around for decades, and it is very well known that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process. However, treating inflammation is new as we haven’t had a specific agent targeting inflammation before, noted Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, director of clinical research, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Dr. Blaha, who has been an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha, added that the approval of low-dose colchicine “will open the door toward having a routine conversation about residual inflammatory risk in our patients; and we need to work out exactly how we do that.”

Dr. Blaha is not surprised by the FDA-approved indication for colchicine, pointing out that the main large-scale trial supporting its use in ASCVD, the LoDoCo-2 trial, included a similar broad population.

“I think the approval was appropriate as the indication should always follow the data. But I think how the drug will actually be used will depend on the context for different individual patients,” he said.

“The paradigm coming forward is the idea of residual risk that patients have after they been treated with the standard of care – which in most cases is a statin and blood pressure control – and what is driving that residual risk,” he noted. “If we think patients are still at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, we have to think what we will do next. This is where this drug will come in.”

Dr. Blaha pointed out that there are now multiple options for reducing residual risk; he believes that it will depend on the profile of the patient as to which of those options is chosen first.

“If after high-dose statin treatment they still have raised LDL, then we can add another LDL lowering drug; or it might be diabetes and obesity that we want to address first; or elevated triglycerides. But now, we can also consider residual inflammatory risk if we think the patient has residual plaque inflammation,” he said. “So, colchicine will be one of several choices beyond a statin that we can think about as the next step for treating residual risk.”
 

Is CRP measurement necessary?

Though elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is a marker of inflammation in ASCVD, the two main trials of colchicine in ASCVD, both of which showed large benefits of the drug, did not measure hsCRP, leading to questions as to whether measurement of this biomarker is necessary to select patients for colchicine treatment.

“Some clinicians will favor testing hsCRP and treating those with levels above 2 mg/L. I think that’s very reasonable,” Dr. Blaha said. “However, because hsCRP was not measured in the trials, I don’t think testing for this biomarker is mandatory to establish that there is inflammation,” he added.

“The label does not stipulate that CRP has to be measured. It is giving physicians latitude; they can measure CRP, or they don’t have to.”

Dr. Blaha added that clinicians need to think about what is driving residual risk in each individual patient: “If you think their other risk factors are well controlled but they are still having recurrent events, then we can consider colchicine as a way of reducing their residual risk which is likely being caused by inflammation.

“We are at a great place in cardiovascular medicine as we have several different options to use after a statin, and now we have this new therapy targeted at inflammation as well. While we can use all these options together, I think most clinicians will want to prioritize therapies by using the ones that they believe will reduce the residual risk the most in each individual patient,” Dr. Blaha explained.
 

‘An entire other axis driving atherosclerosis’

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, is one of the major players in the cardiovascular inflammation field and has helped develop hsCRP testing. He has similar views.

“This FDA approval is extremely important, as it will draw attention to the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and the need to treat it,” he said.

“Physicians need to be aware that, yes, we need to lower cholesterol aggressively, but they also need to know that there is an entire other axis driving atherosclerosis – and that is inflammation. And until now, we haven’t had an FDA-approved drug to treat inflammation.”

Dr. Ridker stressed that he doesn’t want to undermine lowering lipids: “Therapies aimed at inflammation are not in competition with those aimed at lipid lowering. We know lipid lowering works. But now we have another approach as well. The challenge here is educating physicians on this new approach.”

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low-dose colchicine for patients whom he refers to as “frequent flyers”; those who keep coming back despite aggressive lipid lowering. “They have multiple angioplasties, bypass surgery, etc.”

Like Dr. Blaha, Dr. Ridker thinks that doctors should start using this drug in high-risk patients who are already on a statin and who have residual inflammatory risk: “[The] patient whose underlying biologic problem is inflammation [is whom] we really want to treat with this drug. That is where it is most likely to be highly effective and where the comfort level will be the greatest.”

He said that measurement of hsCRP is an appropriate way to select these patients.

“I think this is a great impetus to start having much wider CRP measurement so we can actually target this anti-inflammatory drug to the patients with residual inflammatory risk – those with hsCRP level above 2 mg/L,” he said, estimating that this could apply to around 30%-40% of patients with ASCVD who are already taking a statin.
 

A second pillar of ASCVD treatment?

A somewhat different view is held by Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Research Centre at the Montréal Heart Institute, Canada, who was the lead investigator of the other randomized controlled trial of colchicine in heart disease, the COLCOT trial.

He said that colchicine should become the “second pillar” of ASCVD treatment, along with statins, for almost all patients.

Tardif referred to the recent study (led by Dr. Ridker) in The Lancet, which showed that among patients who are already on a statin, those with high inflammation levels had the highest risk for future events.

“So, the next step after a statin has to be to consider inflammation reduction,” he said.

“Despite all the drugs we have, ASCVD remains the leading cause of death in the Western world. What drives these events is largely inflammation, so it makes sense to directly tackle reduction of inflammation in the vessel, with a drug like colchicine,” he noted.

“I would say all patients with coronary atherosclerosis are potential candidates for low-dose colchicine as long as they do not have severe kidney disease, which is a contraindication,” Dr. Tardif said.

“If you want to fine tune this a bit more, those that are at particular risk are those that have recurrent events, those with multiple risk factors, and those with a recent [myocardial infarction]. In these patients, it would make a lot of sense to add low-dose colchicine to high-dose statins,” he added.

Dr. Tardif said he is not going to use CRP measurements to select patients for colchicine treatment: “Although measuring CRP may make sense intuitively, both large, randomized trials of colchicine did not select patients based on raised CRP, and they showed a benefit across the board.

If I consider a patient with ASCVD to be at high risk of future events and they are already on a statin I’m going to consider colchicine in all these patients, as long as they don’t have severe kidney disease.”

Dr. Tardif said that ASCVD needs to follow the model of heart failure which has several pillars of treatment directed at different targets that are all used together.

“I think we should apply the same approach to patients with ASCVD,” he added. “Yes, we need to hit the cholesterol with a statin, but we can now also hit the inflammation with colchicine.”
 

Polypharmacy concerns

Steve Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the colchicine trials, is also enthusiastic about use of colchicine. But like Dr. Ridker and Dr. Blaha, he favors selecting patients who are likely to benefit the most.

“I have been an advocate of the inflammatory hypothesis for many years, and we have been on a quest for a pure anti-inflammatory therapy that we can add to the standard treatment of patients with coronary disease. And colchicine has the safety and efficacy to do this,” Dr. Nissen said.

“What colchicine offers here is an inexpensive drug with pretty good data on reduction in morbidity from coronary disease. It has a completely different mechanism, so its benefit is likely to be additive to statins. I think we could probably do a lot of good at very little expense by just using these two therapies,” he said.

“But at present my preference will be to use colchicine selectively in those with raised CRP. I think that’s logical. I’m just worried about polypharmacy. Some of my patients are already on five, six, or seven meds. I need to have a reason to add an additional drug, and I’m not sure if we really analyze this carefully that patients with a low CRP would derive the same benefit. They might do, but I doubt it,” he noted.

“There may be further research and analyses that help us understand the relationship between CRP and efficacy of colchicine, and that may help us figure this out,” he added.
 

Safety is reassuring

In terms of safety and tolerability of the 0.5-mg colchicine dose, the experts seem to think that this is very manageable.

“When used for gout or pericarditis, colchicine is generally given at a dose of 0.6 mg twice a day and this can cause a lot of gastrointestinal [GI] side effects,” Dr. Nissen said. “But the low dose approved for ASCVD – 0.5 mg once a day – appears to be much better tolerated. There are some GI side effects, but these are not intolerable, and they generally go away with time.”

Dr. Ridker added that in the randomized trials, the adverse effects were “quite minimal,” but, “that being said, this drug is not to be used in severe kidney or liver disease, and there are some drug interactions that we need to be aware of. But in general, side effects are rare with the low dose. There may be some GI effects but they are mainly mild and you can generally treat through them.”

Dr. Blaha agreed that this is not a drug for patients with advanced kidney disease, “and there are some drug interactions that we have to be mindful of, but the list is not so long. There is a signal of modest gastrointestinal and muscle side effects, but most patients will be able to take it without issues. Because it’s already used in gout, physicians are already quite comfortable with its use.”
 

Part of the backbone of CV treatment?

Concluding, Dr. Blaha said he believes that prescribing of colchicine will start with cardiologists who will use it in their highest-risk patients first.

“But as we become comfortable with it, I think we will start using it in a broader range of patients and eventually primary care doctors will start prescribing it – much like what has happened with the statins,” he suggested.

“Where it sits along with statins in the future will be very interesting to see, but I think some people can envision it being up there with statins as part of the backbone of cardiovascular treatment in future.”

Dr. Tardif holds patents on methods for using low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction, licensed to Montreal Heart Institute. Dr. Ridker is a consultant to Agepha and has research grants from Novo Nordisk related to the development of alternative anti-inflammatory therapies for atherosclerotic disease. Dr. Blaha reports being an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha Pharma.

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

The recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco; Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

The Food and Drug Administration granted colchicine a very broad label: to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in adult patients with established ASCVD or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. But how will the drug be used in clinical practice?

“The idea of inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk has been around for decades, and it is very well known that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process. However, treating inflammation is new as we haven’t had a specific agent targeting inflammation before, noted Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, director of clinical research, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Dr. Blaha, who has been an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha, added that the approval of low-dose colchicine “will open the door toward having a routine conversation about residual inflammatory risk in our patients; and we need to work out exactly how we do that.”

Dr. Blaha is not surprised by the FDA-approved indication for colchicine, pointing out that the main large-scale trial supporting its use in ASCVD, the LoDoCo-2 trial, included a similar broad population.

“I think the approval was appropriate as the indication should always follow the data. But I think how the drug will actually be used will depend on the context for different individual patients,” he said.

“The paradigm coming forward is the idea of residual risk that patients have after they been treated with the standard of care – which in most cases is a statin and blood pressure control – and what is driving that residual risk,” he noted. “If we think patients are still at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, we have to think what we will do next. This is where this drug will come in.”

Dr. Blaha pointed out that there are now multiple options for reducing residual risk; he believes that it will depend on the profile of the patient as to which of those options is chosen first.

“If after high-dose statin treatment they still have raised LDL, then we can add another LDL lowering drug; or it might be diabetes and obesity that we want to address first; or elevated triglycerides. But now, we can also consider residual inflammatory risk if we think the patient has residual plaque inflammation,” he said. “So, colchicine will be one of several choices beyond a statin that we can think about as the next step for treating residual risk.”
 

Is CRP measurement necessary?

Though elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is a marker of inflammation in ASCVD, the two main trials of colchicine in ASCVD, both of which showed large benefits of the drug, did not measure hsCRP, leading to questions as to whether measurement of this biomarker is necessary to select patients for colchicine treatment.

“Some clinicians will favor testing hsCRP and treating those with levels above 2 mg/L. I think that’s very reasonable,” Dr. Blaha said. “However, because hsCRP was not measured in the trials, I don’t think testing for this biomarker is mandatory to establish that there is inflammation,” he added.

“The label does not stipulate that CRP has to be measured. It is giving physicians latitude; they can measure CRP, or they don’t have to.”

Dr. Blaha added that clinicians need to think about what is driving residual risk in each individual patient: “If you think their other risk factors are well controlled but they are still having recurrent events, then we can consider colchicine as a way of reducing their residual risk which is likely being caused by inflammation.

“We are at a great place in cardiovascular medicine as we have several different options to use after a statin, and now we have this new therapy targeted at inflammation as well. While we can use all these options together, I think most clinicians will want to prioritize therapies by using the ones that they believe will reduce the residual risk the most in each individual patient,” Dr. Blaha explained.
 

‘An entire other axis driving atherosclerosis’

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, is one of the major players in the cardiovascular inflammation field and has helped develop hsCRP testing. He has similar views.

“This FDA approval is extremely important, as it will draw attention to the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and the need to treat it,” he said.

“Physicians need to be aware that, yes, we need to lower cholesterol aggressively, but they also need to know that there is an entire other axis driving atherosclerosis – and that is inflammation. And until now, we haven’t had an FDA-approved drug to treat inflammation.”

Dr. Ridker stressed that he doesn’t want to undermine lowering lipids: “Therapies aimed at inflammation are not in competition with those aimed at lipid lowering. We know lipid lowering works. But now we have another approach as well. The challenge here is educating physicians on this new approach.”

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low-dose colchicine for patients whom he refers to as “frequent flyers”; those who keep coming back despite aggressive lipid lowering. “They have multiple angioplasties, bypass surgery, etc.”

Like Dr. Blaha, Dr. Ridker thinks that doctors should start using this drug in high-risk patients who are already on a statin and who have residual inflammatory risk: “[The] patient whose underlying biologic problem is inflammation [is whom] we really want to treat with this drug. That is where it is most likely to be highly effective and where the comfort level will be the greatest.”

He said that measurement of hsCRP is an appropriate way to select these patients.

“I think this is a great impetus to start having much wider CRP measurement so we can actually target this anti-inflammatory drug to the patients with residual inflammatory risk – those with hsCRP level above 2 mg/L,” he said, estimating that this could apply to around 30%-40% of patients with ASCVD who are already taking a statin.
 

A second pillar of ASCVD treatment?

A somewhat different view is held by Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Research Centre at the Montréal Heart Institute, Canada, who was the lead investigator of the other randomized controlled trial of colchicine in heart disease, the COLCOT trial.

He said that colchicine should become the “second pillar” of ASCVD treatment, along with statins, for almost all patients.

Tardif referred to the recent study (led by Dr. Ridker) in The Lancet, which showed that among patients who are already on a statin, those with high inflammation levels had the highest risk for future events.

“So, the next step after a statin has to be to consider inflammation reduction,” he said.

“Despite all the drugs we have, ASCVD remains the leading cause of death in the Western world. What drives these events is largely inflammation, so it makes sense to directly tackle reduction of inflammation in the vessel, with a drug like colchicine,” he noted.

“I would say all patients with coronary atherosclerosis are potential candidates for low-dose colchicine as long as they do not have severe kidney disease, which is a contraindication,” Dr. Tardif said.

“If you want to fine tune this a bit more, those that are at particular risk are those that have recurrent events, those with multiple risk factors, and those with a recent [myocardial infarction]. In these patients, it would make a lot of sense to add low-dose colchicine to high-dose statins,” he added.

Dr. Tardif said he is not going to use CRP measurements to select patients for colchicine treatment: “Although measuring CRP may make sense intuitively, both large, randomized trials of colchicine did not select patients based on raised CRP, and they showed a benefit across the board.

If I consider a patient with ASCVD to be at high risk of future events and they are already on a statin I’m going to consider colchicine in all these patients, as long as they don’t have severe kidney disease.”

Dr. Tardif said that ASCVD needs to follow the model of heart failure which has several pillars of treatment directed at different targets that are all used together.

“I think we should apply the same approach to patients with ASCVD,” he added. “Yes, we need to hit the cholesterol with a statin, but we can now also hit the inflammation with colchicine.”
 

Polypharmacy concerns

Steve Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the colchicine trials, is also enthusiastic about use of colchicine. But like Dr. Ridker and Dr. Blaha, he favors selecting patients who are likely to benefit the most.

“I have been an advocate of the inflammatory hypothesis for many years, and we have been on a quest for a pure anti-inflammatory therapy that we can add to the standard treatment of patients with coronary disease. And colchicine has the safety and efficacy to do this,” Dr. Nissen said.

“What colchicine offers here is an inexpensive drug with pretty good data on reduction in morbidity from coronary disease. It has a completely different mechanism, so its benefit is likely to be additive to statins. I think we could probably do a lot of good at very little expense by just using these two therapies,” he said.

“But at present my preference will be to use colchicine selectively in those with raised CRP. I think that’s logical. I’m just worried about polypharmacy. Some of my patients are already on five, six, or seven meds. I need to have a reason to add an additional drug, and I’m not sure if we really analyze this carefully that patients with a low CRP would derive the same benefit. They might do, but I doubt it,” he noted.

“There may be further research and analyses that help us understand the relationship between CRP and efficacy of colchicine, and that may help us figure this out,” he added.
 

Safety is reassuring

In terms of safety and tolerability of the 0.5-mg colchicine dose, the experts seem to think that this is very manageable.

“When used for gout or pericarditis, colchicine is generally given at a dose of 0.6 mg twice a day and this can cause a lot of gastrointestinal [GI] side effects,” Dr. Nissen said. “But the low dose approved for ASCVD – 0.5 mg once a day – appears to be much better tolerated. There are some GI side effects, but these are not intolerable, and they generally go away with time.”

Dr. Ridker added that in the randomized trials, the adverse effects were “quite minimal,” but, “that being said, this drug is not to be used in severe kidney or liver disease, and there are some drug interactions that we need to be aware of. But in general, side effects are rare with the low dose. There may be some GI effects but they are mainly mild and you can generally treat through them.”

Dr. Blaha agreed that this is not a drug for patients with advanced kidney disease, “and there are some drug interactions that we have to be mindful of, but the list is not so long. There is a signal of modest gastrointestinal and muscle side effects, but most patients will be able to take it without issues. Because it’s already used in gout, physicians are already quite comfortable with its use.”
 

Part of the backbone of CV treatment?

Concluding, Dr. Blaha said he believes that prescribing of colchicine will start with cardiologists who will use it in their highest-risk patients first.

“But as we become comfortable with it, I think we will start using it in a broader range of patients and eventually primary care doctors will start prescribing it – much like what has happened with the statins,” he suggested.

“Where it sits along with statins in the future will be very interesting to see, but I think some people can envision it being up there with statins as part of the backbone of cardiovascular treatment in future.”

Dr. Tardif holds patents on methods for using low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction, licensed to Montreal Heart Institute. Dr. Ridker is a consultant to Agepha and has research grants from Novo Nordisk related to the development of alternative anti-inflammatory therapies for atherosclerotic disease. Dr. Blaha reports being an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha Pharma.

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