Cardiology

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

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

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

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

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

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

Physicians routinely monitor cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels to get a clearer picture of their patients’ overall health. But a group of experts argues that having an accurate read of a person’s ability to absorb oxygen during peak exertion – VO₂ max – is just as important.

Once the focus of cyclists and other elite athletes, VO₂ max has in recent years caught the attention of geriatricians, who have linked the measure to maximum functional capacity – an umbrella term for the body’s ability to perform aerobic exercise.

“Function is prognostic of mortality,” said Daniel E. Forman, MD, FAHA, FACC, professor of medicine and chair of the section of geriatric cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “If you aren’t looking at that, you’re missing the boat.”

Although cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) remains the gold standard for assessing VO₂ max, Dr. Forman said clinicians often overlook CPET because it is old.
 

Getting precise

As a person ages, the amount of physical activity needed to stay fit varies, depending on genes, health, and fitness history. Measuring VO₂ max can help doctors better prescribe physical activity, both with regard to specific exercises and for how long, Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, dean of research and education at the Exercise Medicine Clinic at CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, told this news organization. The test can also measure progress.

“Guidelines talk about how much exercise you should do every week, but it’s somewhat misleading because the health outcomes are much more linked to physical fitness than the amount of exercise you do,” Dr. Araújo said. Treating a patient with hypertension requires an individualized approach. “The same thing is true with exercise,” he said.

A person with high aerobic fitness, either because of favorable genetics or because he or she has maintained good fitness by exercising, may need less activity, but 200 minutes per week may not be enough for someone else.

In his own lab, Dr. Araújo is following “dozens” of men and women who have been able to increase their ability to exercise – especially high-intensity activity – over time. And their VO₂ max readings have risen, he said.

Getting patients moving and collecting data on VO₂ max is the most precise way to measure aerobic fitness. But the test is far from a staple in primary care.

Dr. Araújo said a growing body of research has long shown VO₂ max to be a significant determinant of health and one that physicians should be paying closer attention to, especially for aging patients.

“If someone has a low VO₂ max, the treatment to correct this unfavorable health profile is to increase exercise levels,” Dr. Araújo said. “This is a very relevant public health message.”

Investigators have found that inactivity increases a person’s risk of dying from an atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event by about the same amount as smoking, and that a sedentary lifestyle increases with age . A patient’s fitness is crucial to his or her overall health, and VO₂ max can play a key role. Poor performance on CPET could be a warning regarding a number of conditions, particularly cardiovascular and lung disease, Dr. Araújo said.

Indeed, acing the CPET is not easy.

“Your joints have to be normal, you can’t have low potassium, low sodium, or high blood sugar, your heart has to pump well, your blood vessels have to be healthy,” said Thomas Allison, PhD, MPH, director of the Integrated Stress Testing Center and the Sports Cardiology Clinic at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn. “All of those things can show up on the treadmill in terms of your VO₂ max.”

Low VO₂ max can be a physician’s first indication to investigate further. A review published in November 2022 in the International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention outlined what cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have documented regarding how VO₂ max changes as people age. From ages 18 to 35, VO₂ max remains fairly consistent. Between 35 and 55, it drops slightly but inexorably before falling sharply, if inconsistently. This inconsistency is where the important data lie.

“That lower level of physical activity may just be a behavioral change that needs to be reversed, or it could be a change that has been forced by underlying occult disease,” Dr. Allison said. That older people can’t run as fast as young people or are more likely to die in a given period than young people is not surprising. “The question is, at any given age, does your fitness level predict good health outcomes?” he said. “And the answer is yes.”

Fitness should be treated as any other data point, he added.

“If I want to know your blood pressure, I’m going to check your blood pressure; I’m not going to just ask you what it is,” Dr. Allison said. “If I ask if you have any limitations or symptoms with exercise or how physically active you are, if possible, I want to check that.”
 

Culture shift

Dr. Forman acknowledged that VO₂ max tests can be difficult and expensive to administer in offices that aren’t already equipped with CPET machines. He said conducting other assessments, such as observing the patient performing a short walk, won’t provide as accurate data but is better than not assessing function at all.

“Specialists all have different things they measure, but function is the common denominator. For an aging population, it is the number one thing we should be looking at,” Dr. Forman said. “It’s a skill set, it’s an investment, it’s a change in culture at a time when cardiologists are obsessed with getting the latest imaging machines.”

Dr. Allison said all cardiologists should assess their patients’ VO₂ max and that family medicine doctors should use the test for certain patients, such as those who have gained an unusual amount of weight or report being out of breath more than usual.

“We have all sorts of things that can go wrong with us as we get older, but if we’re sitting in a doctor’s office, it may not be apparent what they are,” Dr. Allison said. “We have to get patients up and moving.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians routinely monitor cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels to get a clearer picture of their patients’ overall health. But a group of experts argues that having an accurate read of a person’s ability to absorb oxygen during peak exertion – VO₂ max – is just as important.

Once the focus of cyclists and other elite athletes, VO₂ max has in recent years caught the attention of geriatricians, who have linked the measure to maximum functional capacity – an umbrella term for the body’s ability to perform aerobic exercise.

“Function is prognostic of mortality,” said Daniel E. Forman, MD, FAHA, FACC, professor of medicine and chair of the section of geriatric cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “If you aren’t looking at that, you’re missing the boat.”

Although cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) remains the gold standard for assessing VO₂ max, Dr. Forman said clinicians often overlook CPET because it is old.
 

Getting precise

As a person ages, the amount of physical activity needed to stay fit varies, depending on genes, health, and fitness history. Measuring VO₂ max can help doctors better prescribe physical activity, both with regard to specific exercises and for how long, Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, dean of research and education at the Exercise Medicine Clinic at CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, told this news organization. The test can also measure progress.

“Guidelines talk about how much exercise you should do every week, but it’s somewhat misleading because the health outcomes are much more linked to physical fitness than the amount of exercise you do,” Dr. Araújo said. Treating a patient with hypertension requires an individualized approach. “The same thing is true with exercise,” he said.

A person with high aerobic fitness, either because of favorable genetics or because he or she has maintained good fitness by exercising, may need less activity, but 200 minutes per week may not be enough for someone else.

In his own lab, Dr. Araújo is following “dozens” of men and women who have been able to increase their ability to exercise – especially high-intensity activity – over time. And their VO₂ max readings have risen, he said.

Getting patients moving and collecting data on VO₂ max is the most precise way to measure aerobic fitness. But the test is far from a staple in primary care.

Dr. Araújo said a growing body of research has long shown VO₂ max to be a significant determinant of health and one that physicians should be paying closer attention to, especially for aging patients.

“If someone has a low VO₂ max, the treatment to correct this unfavorable health profile is to increase exercise levels,” Dr. Araújo said. “This is a very relevant public health message.”

Investigators have found that inactivity increases a person’s risk of dying from an atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event by about the same amount as smoking, and that a sedentary lifestyle increases with age . A patient’s fitness is crucial to his or her overall health, and VO₂ max can play a key role. Poor performance on CPET could be a warning regarding a number of conditions, particularly cardiovascular and lung disease, Dr. Araújo said.

Indeed, acing the CPET is not easy.

“Your joints have to be normal, you can’t have low potassium, low sodium, or high blood sugar, your heart has to pump well, your blood vessels have to be healthy,” said Thomas Allison, PhD, MPH, director of the Integrated Stress Testing Center and the Sports Cardiology Clinic at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn. “All of those things can show up on the treadmill in terms of your VO₂ max.”

Low VO₂ max can be a physician’s first indication to investigate further. A review published in November 2022 in the International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention outlined what cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have documented regarding how VO₂ max changes as people age. From ages 18 to 35, VO₂ max remains fairly consistent. Between 35 and 55, it drops slightly but inexorably before falling sharply, if inconsistently. This inconsistency is where the important data lie.

“That lower level of physical activity may just be a behavioral change that needs to be reversed, or it could be a change that has been forced by underlying occult disease,” Dr. Allison said. That older people can’t run as fast as young people or are more likely to die in a given period than young people is not surprising. “The question is, at any given age, does your fitness level predict good health outcomes?” he said. “And the answer is yes.”

Fitness should be treated as any other data point, he added.

“If I want to know your blood pressure, I’m going to check your blood pressure; I’m not going to just ask you what it is,” Dr. Allison said. “If I ask if you have any limitations or symptoms with exercise or how physically active you are, if possible, I want to check that.”
 

Culture shift

Dr. Forman acknowledged that VO₂ max tests can be difficult and expensive to administer in offices that aren’t already equipped with CPET machines. He said conducting other assessments, such as observing the patient performing a short walk, won’t provide as accurate data but is better than not assessing function at all.

“Specialists all have different things they measure, but function is the common denominator. For an aging population, it is the number one thing we should be looking at,” Dr. Forman said. “It’s a skill set, it’s an investment, it’s a change in culture at a time when cardiologists are obsessed with getting the latest imaging machines.”

Dr. Allison said all cardiologists should assess their patients’ VO₂ max and that family medicine doctors should use the test for certain patients, such as those who have gained an unusual amount of weight or report being out of breath more than usual.

“We have all sorts of things that can go wrong with us as we get older, but if we’re sitting in a doctor’s office, it may not be apparent what they are,” Dr. Allison said. “We have to get patients up and moving.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians routinely monitor cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels to get a clearer picture of their patients’ overall health. But a group of experts argues that having an accurate read of a person’s ability to absorb oxygen during peak exertion – VO₂ max – is just as important.

Once the focus of cyclists and other elite athletes, VO₂ max has in recent years caught the attention of geriatricians, who have linked the measure to maximum functional capacity – an umbrella term for the body’s ability to perform aerobic exercise.

“Function is prognostic of mortality,” said Daniel E. Forman, MD, FAHA, FACC, professor of medicine and chair of the section of geriatric cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “If you aren’t looking at that, you’re missing the boat.”

Although cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) remains the gold standard for assessing VO₂ max, Dr. Forman said clinicians often overlook CPET because it is old.
 

Getting precise

As a person ages, the amount of physical activity needed to stay fit varies, depending on genes, health, and fitness history. Measuring VO₂ max can help doctors better prescribe physical activity, both with regard to specific exercises and for how long, Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, dean of research and education at the Exercise Medicine Clinic at CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, told this news organization. The test can also measure progress.

“Guidelines talk about how much exercise you should do every week, but it’s somewhat misleading because the health outcomes are much more linked to physical fitness than the amount of exercise you do,” Dr. Araújo said. Treating a patient with hypertension requires an individualized approach. “The same thing is true with exercise,” he said.

A person with high aerobic fitness, either because of favorable genetics or because he or she has maintained good fitness by exercising, may need less activity, but 200 minutes per week may not be enough for someone else.

In his own lab, Dr. Araújo is following “dozens” of men and women who have been able to increase their ability to exercise – especially high-intensity activity – over time. And their VO₂ max readings have risen, he said.

Getting patients moving and collecting data on VO₂ max is the most precise way to measure aerobic fitness. But the test is far from a staple in primary care.

Dr. Araújo said a growing body of research has long shown VO₂ max to be a significant determinant of health and one that physicians should be paying closer attention to, especially for aging patients.

“If someone has a low VO₂ max, the treatment to correct this unfavorable health profile is to increase exercise levels,” Dr. Araújo said. “This is a very relevant public health message.”

Investigators have found that inactivity increases a person’s risk of dying from an atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event by about the same amount as smoking, and that a sedentary lifestyle increases with age . A patient’s fitness is crucial to his or her overall health, and VO₂ max can play a key role. Poor performance on CPET could be a warning regarding a number of conditions, particularly cardiovascular and lung disease, Dr. Araújo said.

Indeed, acing the CPET is not easy.

“Your joints have to be normal, you can’t have low potassium, low sodium, or high blood sugar, your heart has to pump well, your blood vessels have to be healthy,” said Thomas Allison, PhD, MPH, director of the Integrated Stress Testing Center and the Sports Cardiology Clinic at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn. “All of those things can show up on the treadmill in terms of your VO₂ max.”

Low VO₂ max can be a physician’s first indication to investigate further. A review published in November 2022 in the International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention outlined what cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have documented regarding how VO₂ max changes as people age. From ages 18 to 35, VO₂ max remains fairly consistent. Between 35 and 55, it drops slightly but inexorably before falling sharply, if inconsistently. This inconsistency is where the important data lie.

“That lower level of physical activity may just be a behavioral change that needs to be reversed, or it could be a change that has been forced by underlying occult disease,” Dr. Allison said. That older people can’t run as fast as young people or are more likely to die in a given period than young people is not surprising. “The question is, at any given age, does your fitness level predict good health outcomes?” he said. “And the answer is yes.”

Fitness should be treated as any other data point, he added.

“If I want to know your blood pressure, I’m going to check your blood pressure; I’m not going to just ask you what it is,” Dr. Allison said. “If I ask if you have any limitations or symptoms with exercise or how physically active you are, if possible, I want to check that.”
 

Culture shift

Dr. Forman acknowledged that VO₂ max tests can be difficult and expensive to administer in offices that aren’t already equipped with CPET machines. He said conducting other assessments, such as observing the patient performing a short walk, won’t provide as accurate data but is better than not assessing function at all.

“Specialists all have different things they measure, but function is the common denominator. For an aging population, it is the number one thing we should be looking at,” Dr. Forman said. “It’s a skill set, it’s an investment, it’s a change in culture at a time when cardiologists are obsessed with getting the latest imaging machines.”

Dr. Allison said all cardiologists should assess their patients’ VO₂ max and that family medicine doctors should use the test for certain patients, such as those who have gained an unusual amount of weight or report being out of breath more than usual.

“We have all sorts of things that can go wrong with us as we get older, but if we’re sitting in a doctor’s office, it may not be apparent what they are,” Dr. Allison said. “We have to get patients up and moving.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Butylphthalide, a medication derived from celery seed, may improve outcomes after an acute ischemic stroke when given in addition to thrombolysis or endovascular treatment, a new report suggests.

Patients treated with butylphthalide had fewer severe neurologic symptoms and better function 90 days after the stroke, compared with those receiving placebo.

Butylphthalide is approved and available for use in China, where the study was conducted. However, the medication hasn’t been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Patients who received butylphthalide had less severe neurological symptoms and a better living status at 90 days post stroke, compared to those who received the placebo,” said coauthor Baixue Jia, MD, an attending physician in interventional neuroradiology at the Beijing Tiantan Hospital of Capital Medical University and a faculty member at the China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases in Beijing. “If the results are confirmed in other trials, this may lead to more options to treat strokes caused by clots.”

The study was presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Studying stroke outcomes

The researchers described butylphthalide as a cerebroprotective drug that was originally extracted from seeds of Apium graveolens. In China, previous studies have shown that the drug has cerebroprotective effects in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion, they noted.

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Dr. Jia and colleagues evaluated whether treatment with butylphthalide could improve 90-day outcomes for adults with acute ischemic stroke who received intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), endovascular treatment, or both.

The participants were treated at one of 59 medical centers in China between July 2018 and February 2022. Those who had minimal stroke symptoms on their initial exam, defined as a score of 0-3 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, or had severe stroke symptoms, defined as having a score of 26 or higher on the NIHSS, were excluded from the study.

Along with an initial revascularization intervention chosen by their physician, participants were randomly selected to receive either butylphthalide or a placebo daily for 90 days. The drug was administered through daily intravenous injections for the first 14 days, after which patients received oral capsules for 76 days.

The research team defined the outcomes as “favorable” if a patient fell into one of the following categories 90 days after the stroke: an initially mild to moderate stroke (NIHSS, 4-7) and no symptoms after treatment, defined as a score of 0 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), which measures disability and dependence; an initially moderate to serious stroke (NIHSS, 8-14) and no residual symptoms or mild symptoms that don’t impair the ability to perform routine activities of daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-1); or an initially serious to severe stroke (NIHSS, 15-25) and no remaining symptoms or a slight disability that impairs some activities but allows one to conduct daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-2).

Secondary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, recurrent stroke, and mortality.

Among the 1,216 participants, 607 were assigned to the treatment group, and 609 were assigned to the placebo group. The average age was 66 years, and 68% were men.

Overall, participants in the butylphthalide group were 70% more likely to have a favorable 90-day outcome, compared with the placebo group. Favorable outcomes occurred in 344 patients (56.7%) in the butylphthalide group, compared with 268 patients (44%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.14; P < .001).

In addition, butylphthalide improved function equally well for the patients who initially received tPA, those who received endovascular treatment, and those who received both tPA and endovascular treatment.

Secondary events, such as recurrent stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, weren’t significantly different between the butylphthalide and placebo groups.
 

Ongoing questions

Dr. Jia and colleagues noted the need to understand how butylphthalide works in the brain. Animal studies have suggested several possible mechanisms, but it remains unclear.

“The next step should be investigating the exact mechanisms of butylphthalide in humans,” Dr. Jia said.

Additional research should assess the medication in other populations, the authors noted, particularly because the study involved participants who received initial treatment with tPA, endovascular treatment, or both. The results may not be generalizable to stroke patients who receive other treatments or to populations outside of China.

“While these are interesting results, this is only one relatively small study on a fairly select population in China. Butylphthalide, a medication initially compounded from celery seed, is not ready for use in standard stroke treatment,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology and director of the division of translational neurosciences and population studies at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Dr. Lackland, who wasn’t involved with the study, is a member of the American Stroke Association’s Stroke Council. Although butylphthalide was originally extracted from seeds, he noted, it’s not what patients would find commercially available.

“The medication used in this study is not the same as celery seed or celery seed extract supplements,” he said. “Stroke survivors should always consult with their neurologist or healthcare professional regarding diet after a stroke.”

The study was funded by the National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China and Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Group dl-3-butylphthalide Pharmaceutical. Several authors are employed with Beijing Tiantan Hospital and the Beijing Institute of Brain Disorders. Dr. Lackland reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Butylphthalide, a medication derived from celery seed, may improve outcomes after an acute ischemic stroke when given in addition to thrombolysis or endovascular treatment, a new report suggests.

Patients treated with butylphthalide had fewer severe neurologic symptoms and better function 90 days after the stroke, compared with those receiving placebo.

Butylphthalide is approved and available for use in China, where the study was conducted. However, the medication hasn’t been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Patients who received butylphthalide had less severe neurological symptoms and a better living status at 90 days post stroke, compared to those who received the placebo,” said coauthor Baixue Jia, MD, an attending physician in interventional neuroradiology at the Beijing Tiantan Hospital of Capital Medical University and a faculty member at the China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases in Beijing. “If the results are confirmed in other trials, this may lead to more options to treat strokes caused by clots.”

The study was presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Studying stroke outcomes

The researchers described butylphthalide as a cerebroprotective drug that was originally extracted from seeds of Apium graveolens. In China, previous studies have shown that the drug has cerebroprotective effects in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion, they noted.

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Dr. Jia and colleagues evaluated whether treatment with butylphthalide could improve 90-day outcomes for adults with acute ischemic stroke who received intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), endovascular treatment, or both.

The participants were treated at one of 59 medical centers in China between July 2018 and February 2022. Those who had minimal stroke symptoms on their initial exam, defined as a score of 0-3 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, or had severe stroke symptoms, defined as having a score of 26 or higher on the NIHSS, were excluded from the study.

Along with an initial revascularization intervention chosen by their physician, participants were randomly selected to receive either butylphthalide or a placebo daily for 90 days. The drug was administered through daily intravenous injections for the first 14 days, after which patients received oral capsules for 76 days.

The research team defined the outcomes as “favorable” if a patient fell into one of the following categories 90 days after the stroke: an initially mild to moderate stroke (NIHSS, 4-7) and no symptoms after treatment, defined as a score of 0 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), which measures disability and dependence; an initially moderate to serious stroke (NIHSS, 8-14) and no residual symptoms or mild symptoms that don’t impair the ability to perform routine activities of daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-1); or an initially serious to severe stroke (NIHSS, 15-25) and no remaining symptoms or a slight disability that impairs some activities but allows one to conduct daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-2).

Secondary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, recurrent stroke, and mortality.

Among the 1,216 participants, 607 were assigned to the treatment group, and 609 were assigned to the placebo group. The average age was 66 years, and 68% were men.

Overall, participants in the butylphthalide group were 70% more likely to have a favorable 90-day outcome, compared with the placebo group. Favorable outcomes occurred in 344 patients (56.7%) in the butylphthalide group, compared with 268 patients (44%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.14; P < .001).

In addition, butylphthalide improved function equally well for the patients who initially received tPA, those who received endovascular treatment, and those who received both tPA and endovascular treatment.

Secondary events, such as recurrent stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, weren’t significantly different between the butylphthalide and placebo groups.
 

Ongoing questions

Dr. Jia and colleagues noted the need to understand how butylphthalide works in the brain. Animal studies have suggested several possible mechanisms, but it remains unclear.

“The next step should be investigating the exact mechanisms of butylphthalide in humans,” Dr. Jia said.

Additional research should assess the medication in other populations, the authors noted, particularly because the study involved participants who received initial treatment with tPA, endovascular treatment, or both. The results may not be generalizable to stroke patients who receive other treatments or to populations outside of China.

“While these are interesting results, this is only one relatively small study on a fairly select population in China. Butylphthalide, a medication initially compounded from celery seed, is not ready for use in standard stroke treatment,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology and director of the division of translational neurosciences and population studies at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Dr. Lackland, who wasn’t involved with the study, is a member of the American Stroke Association’s Stroke Council. Although butylphthalide was originally extracted from seeds, he noted, it’s not what patients would find commercially available.

“The medication used in this study is not the same as celery seed or celery seed extract supplements,” he said. “Stroke survivors should always consult with their neurologist or healthcare professional regarding diet after a stroke.”

The study was funded by the National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China and Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Group dl-3-butylphthalide Pharmaceutical. Several authors are employed with Beijing Tiantan Hospital and the Beijing Institute of Brain Disorders. Dr. Lackland reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Butylphthalide, a medication derived from celery seed, may improve outcomes after an acute ischemic stroke when given in addition to thrombolysis or endovascular treatment, a new report suggests.

Patients treated with butylphthalide had fewer severe neurologic symptoms and better function 90 days after the stroke, compared with those receiving placebo.

Butylphthalide is approved and available for use in China, where the study was conducted. However, the medication hasn’t been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Patients who received butylphthalide had less severe neurological symptoms and a better living status at 90 days post stroke, compared to those who received the placebo,” said coauthor Baixue Jia, MD, an attending physician in interventional neuroradiology at the Beijing Tiantan Hospital of Capital Medical University and a faculty member at the China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases in Beijing. “If the results are confirmed in other trials, this may lead to more options to treat strokes caused by clots.”

The study was presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Studying stroke outcomes

The researchers described butylphthalide as a cerebroprotective drug that was originally extracted from seeds of Apium graveolens. In China, previous studies have shown that the drug has cerebroprotective effects in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion, they noted.

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Dr. Jia and colleagues evaluated whether treatment with butylphthalide could improve 90-day outcomes for adults with acute ischemic stroke who received intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), endovascular treatment, or both.

The participants were treated at one of 59 medical centers in China between July 2018 and February 2022. Those who had minimal stroke symptoms on their initial exam, defined as a score of 0-3 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, or had severe stroke symptoms, defined as having a score of 26 or higher on the NIHSS, were excluded from the study.

Along with an initial revascularization intervention chosen by their physician, participants were randomly selected to receive either butylphthalide or a placebo daily for 90 days. The drug was administered through daily intravenous injections for the first 14 days, after which patients received oral capsules for 76 days.

The research team defined the outcomes as “favorable” if a patient fell into one of the following categories 90 days after the stroke: an initially mild to moderate stroke (NIHSS, 4-7) and no symptoms after treatment, defined as a score of 0 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), which measures disability and dependence; an initially moderate to serious stroke (NIHSS, 8-14) and no residual symptoms or mild symptoms that don’t impair the ability to perform routine activities of daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-1); or an initially serious to severe stroke (NIHSS, 15-25) and no remaining symptoms or a slight disability that impairs some activities but allows one to conduct daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-2).

Secondary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, recurrent stroke, and mortality.

Among the 1,216 participants, 607 were assigned to the treatment group, and 609 were assigned to the placebo group. The average age was 66 years, and 68% were men.

Overall, participants in the butylphthalide group were 70% more likely to have a favorable 90-day outcome, compared with the placebo group. Favorable outcomes occurred in 344 patients (56.7%) in the butylphthalide group, compared with 268 patients (44%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.14; P < .001).

In addition, butylphthalide improved function equally well for the patients who initially received tPA, those who received endovascular treatment, and those who received both tPA and endovascular treatment.

Secondary events, such as recurrent stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, weren’t significantly different between the butylphthalide and placebo groups.
 

Ongoing questions

Dr. Jia and colleagues noted the need to understand how butylphthalide works in the brain. Animal studies have suggested several possible mechanisms, but it remains unclear.

“The next step should be investigating the exact mechanisms of butylphthalide in humans,” Dr. Jia said.

Additional research should assess the medication in other populations, the authors noted, particularly because the study involved participants who received initial treatment with tPA, endovascular treatment, or both. The results may not be generalizable to stroke patients who receive other treatments or to populations outside of China.

“While these are interesting results, this is only one relatively small study on a fairly select population in China. Butylphthalide, a medication initially compounded from celery seed, is not ready for use in standard stroke treatment,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology and director of the division of translational neurosciences and population studies at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Dr. Lackland, who wasn’t involved with the study, is a member of the American Stroke Association’s Stroke Council. Although butylphthalide was originally extracted from seeds, he noted, it’s not what patients would find commercially available.

“The medication used in this study is not the same as celery seed or celery seed extract supplements,” he said. “Stroke survivors should always consult with their neurologist or healthcare professional regarding diet after a stroke.”

The study was funded by the National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China and Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Group dl-3-butylphthalide Pharmaceutical. Several authors are employed with Beijing Tiantan Hospital and the Beijing Institute of Brain Disorders. Dr. Lackland reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Some time ago I was invited to join a bipartisan congressional task force on valley fever, also known as coccidioidomycosis. A large and diverse crowd attended the task force’s first meeting in Bakersfield, Calif. – a meeting for everyone: the medical profession, the public, it even included veterinarians.

The whole thing was a resounding success. Francis Collins was there, the just-retired director of the NIH. Tom Frieden, then-director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was there, as were several congresspeople and also my college roommate, a retired Navy medical corps captain. I was enjoying it.

Afterward, we had a banquet dinner at a restaurant in downtown Bakersfield. One of the people there was a woman I knew well – her husband was a physician friend. The restaurant served steak and salmon, and this woman made the mistake of ordering the steak.

Not long after the entrees were served, I heard a commotion at the table just behind me. I turned around and saw that woman in distress. A piece of steak had wedged in her trachea and she couldn’t breathe.

Almost immediately, the chef showed up. I don’t know how he got there. The chef at this restaurant was a big guy. I mean, probably 6 feet, 5 inches tall and 275 pounds. He tried the Heimlich maneuver. It didn’t work.

At that point, I jumped up. I thought, “Well, maybe I know how to do this better than him.” Probably not, actually. I tried and couldn’t make it work either. So I knew we were going to have to do something.

Paul Krogstad, my friend and research partner who is a pediatric infectious disease physician, stepped up and tried to put his finger in her throat and dig it out. He couldn’t get it. The patient had lost consciousness.

So, I’m thinking, okay, there’s really only one choice. You have to get an airway surgically.

I said, “We have to put her down on the floor.” And then I said, “Knife!”

I was looking at the steak knives on the table and they weren’t to my liking for doing a procedure. My college roommate – the retired Navy man – whipped out this very good pocketknife.

So, there we were, I had Paul Krogstad holding her head, and CDC Director Tom Frieden taking her pulse, which she still had. I took the knife and did a cricothyroidotomy. I had never done this in my life.

While I was making the incision, somebody gave Paul a ballpoint pen and he broke it into pieces to make a tracheostomy tube. Once I’d made the little incision, I put the tube in. She wasn’t breathing, but she still had a pulse.

I leaned forward and blew into the tube and inflated her lungs. I could see her lungs balloon up. It was a nice feeling, because I knew I was clearly in the right place.

I can’t quite explain it, but while I was doing this, I was enormously calm and totally focused. I knew there was a crowd of people around me, all looking at me, but I wasn’t conscious of that.

It was really just the four of us: Paul and Tom and me and our patient. Those were the only people that I was really cognizant of. Paul and Tom were not panic stricken at all. I remember somebody shouting, “We have to start CPR!” and Frieden said, “No. We don’t.”

Moments later, she woke up, sat up, coughed, and shot the piece of steak across the room.

She was breathing on her own, but we still taped that tube into place. Somebody had already summoned an ambulance; they were there not very long after we completed this procedure. I got in the ambulance with her and we rode over to the emergency room at Mercy Truxtun.

She was stable and doing okay. I sat with her until a thoracic surgeon showed up. He checked out the situation and decided we didn’t need that tube and took it out. I didn’t want to take that out until I had a surgeon there who could do a formal tracheostomy.

They kept her in the hospital for 3 or 4 days. Now, this woman had always had difficulties swallowing, so steak may not have been the best choice. She still had trouble swallowing afterward but recovered.

I’ve known her and her husband a long time, so it was certainly rewarding to be able to provide this service. Years later, though, when her husband died, I spoke at his funeral. When she was speaking to the gathering, she said, “And oh, by the way, Royce, thanks for saving my life.”

That surprised me. I didn’t think we were going to go there.

I’d never tried to practice medicine “at the roadside” before. But that’s part of the career.

Royce Johnson, MD, is the chief of the division of infectious disease among other leadership positions at Kern Medical in Bakersfield, Calif., and the medical director of the Valley Fever Institute.

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

Some time ago I was invited to join a bipartisan congressional task force on valley fever, also known as coccidioidomycosis. A large and diverse crowd attended the task force’s first meeting in Bakersfield, Calif. – a meeting for everyone: the medical profession, the public, it even included veterinarians.

The whole thing was a resounding success. Francis Collins was there, the just-retired director of the NIH. Tom Frieden, then-director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was there, as were several congresspeople and also my college roommate, a retired Navy medical corps captain. I was enjoying it.

Afterward, we had a banquet dinner at a restaurant in downtown Bakersfield. One of the people there was a woman I knew well – her husband was a physician friend. The restaurant served steak and salmon, and this woman made the mistake of ordering the steak.

Not long after the entrees were served, I heard a commotion at the table just behind me. I turned around and saw that woman in distress. A piece of steak had wedged in her trachea and she couldn’t breathe.

Almost immediately, the chef showed up. I don’t know how he got there. The chef at this restaurant was a big guy. I mean, probably 6 feet, 5 inches tall and 275 pounds. He tried the Heimlich maneuver. It didn’t work.

At that point, I jumped up. I thought, “Well, maybe I know how to do this better than him.” Probably not, actually. I tried and couldn’t make it work either. So I knew we were going to have to do something.

Paul Krogstad, my friend and research partner who is a pediatric infectious disease physician, stepped up and tried to put his finger in her throat and dig it out. He couldn’t get it. The patient had lost consciousness.

So, I’m thinking, okay, there’s really only one choice. You have to get an airway surgically.

I said, “We have to put her down on the floor.” And then I said, “Knife!”

I was looking at the steak knives on the table and they weren’t to my liking for doing a procedure. My college roommate – the retired Navy man – whipped out this very good pocketknife.

So, there we were, I had Paul Krogstad holding her head, and CDC Director Tom Frieden taking her pulse, which she still had. I took the knife and did a cricothyroidotomy. I had never done this in my life.

While I was making the incision, somebody gave Paul a ballpoint pen and he broke it into pieces to make a tracheostomy tube. Once I’d made the little incision, I put the tube in. She wasn’t breathing, but she still had a pulse.

I leaned forward and blew into the tube and inflated her lungs. I could see her lungs balloon up. It was a nice feeling, because I knew I was clearly in the right place.

I can’t quite explain it, but while I was doing this, I was enormously calm and totally focused. I knew there was a crowd of people around me, all looking at me, but I wasn’t conscious of that.

It was really just the four of us: Paul and Tom and me and our patient. Those were the only people that I was really cognizant of. Paul and Tom were not panic stricken at all. I remember somebody shouting, “We have to start CPR!” and Frieden said, “No. We don’t.”

Moments later, she woke up, sat up, coughed, and shot the piece of steak across the room.

She was breathing on her own, but we still taped that tube into place. Somebody had already summoned an ambulance; they were there not very long after we completed this procedure. I got in the ambulance with her and we rode over to the emergency room at Mercy Truxtun.

She was stable and doing okay. I sat with her until a thoracic surgeon showed up. He checked out the situation and decided we didn’t need that tube and took it out. I didn’t want to take that out until I had a surgeon there who could do a formal tracheostomy.

They kept her in the hospital for 3 or 4 days. Now, this woman had always had difficulties swallowing, so steak may not have been the best choice. She still had trouble swallowing afterward but recovered.

I’ve known her and her husband a long time, so it was certainly rewarding to be able to provide this service. Years later, though, when her husband died, I spoke at his funeral. When she was speaking to the gathering, she said, “And oh, by the way, Royce, thanks for saving my life.”

That surprised me. I didn’t think we were going to go there.

I’d never tried to practice medicine “at the roadside” before. But that’s part of the career.

Royce Johnson, MD, is the chief of the division of infectious disease among other leadership positions at Kern Medical in Bakersfield, Calif., and the medical director of the Valley Fever Institute.

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

Some time ago I was invited to join a bipartisan congressional task force on valley fever, also known as coccidioidomycosis. A large and diverse crowd attended the task force’s first meeting in Bakersfield, Calif. – a meeting for everyone: the medical profession, the public, it even included veterinarians.

The whole thing was a resounding success. Francis Collins was there, the just-retired director of the NIH. Tom Frieden, then-director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was there, as were several congresspeople and also my college roommate, a retired Navy medical corps captain. I was enjoying it.

Afterward, we had a banquet dinner at a restaurant in downtown Bakersfield. One of the people there was a woman I knew well – her husband was a physician friend. The restaurant served steak and salmon, and this woman made the mistake of ordering the steak.

Not long after the entrees were served, I heard a commotion at the table just behind me. I turned around and saw that woman in distress. A piece of steak had wedged in her trachea and she couldn’t breathe.

Almost immediately, the chef showed up. I don’t know how he got there. The chef at this restaurant was a big guy. I mean, probably 6 feet, 5 inches tall and 275 pounds. He tried the Heimlich maneuver. It didn’t work.

At that point, I jumped up. I thought, “Well, maybe I know how to do this better than him.” Probably not, actually. I tried and couldn’t make it work either. So I knew we were going to have to do something.

Paul Krogstad, my friend and research partner who is a pediatric infectious disease physician, stepped up and tried to put his finger in her throat and dig it out. He couldn’t get it. The patient had lost consciousness.

So, I’m thinking, okay, there’s really only one choice. You have to get an airway surgically.

I said, “We have to put her down on the floor.” And then I said, “Knife!”

I was looking at the steak knives on the table and they weren’t to my liking for doing a procedure. My college roommate – the retired Navy man – whipped out this very good pocketknife.

So, there we were, I had Paul Krogstad holding her head, and CDC Director Tom Frieden taking her pulse, which she still had. I took the knife and did a cricothyroidotomy. I had never done this in my life.

While I was making the incision, somebody gave Paul a ballpoint pen and he broke it into pieces to make a tracheostomy tube. Once I’d made the little incision, I put the tube in. She wasn’t breathing, but she still had a pulse.

I leaned forward and blew into the tube and inflated her lungs. I could see her lungs balloon up. It was a nice feeling, because I knew I was clearly in the right place.

I can’t quite explain it, but while I was doing this, I was enormously calm and totally focused. I knew there was a crowd of people around me, all looking at me, but I wasn’t conscious of that.

It was really just the four of us: Paul and Tom and me and our patient. Those were the only people that I was really cognizant of. Paul and Tom were not panic stricken at all. I remember somebody shouting, “We have to start CPR!” and Frieden said, “No. We don’t.”

Moments later, she woke up, sat up, coughed, and shot the piece of steak across the room.

She was breathing on her own, but we still taped that tube into place. Somebody had already summoned an ambulance; they were there not very long after we completed this procedure. I got in the ambulance with her and we rode over to the emergency room at Mercy Truxtun.

She was stable and doing okay. I sat with her until a thoracic surgeon showed up. He checked out the situation and decided we didn’t need that tube and took it out. I didn’t want to take that out until I had a surgeon there who could do a formal tracheostomy.

They kept her in the hospital for 3 or 4 days. Now, this woman had always had difficulties swallowing, so steak may not have been the best choice. She still had trouble swallowing afterward but recovered.

I’ve known her and her husband a long time, so it was certainly rewarding to be able to provide this service. Years later, though, when her husband died, I spoke at his funeral. When she was speaking to the gathering, she said, “And oh, by the way, Royce, thanks for saving my life.”

That surprised me. I didn’t think we were going to go there.

I’d never tried to practice medicine “at the roadside” before. But that’s part of the career.

Royce Johnson, MD, is the chief of the division of infectious disease among other leadership positions at Kern Medical in Bakersfield, Calif., and the medical director of the Valley Fever Institute.

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

A tool that incorporates lupus-related variables with traditional risk factors provides a much more accurate assessment of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

In the initial clinical assessment of this tool, called the SLECRISK, “it identified high-risk lupus patients who would otherwise be missed by traditional methods of CV risk assessment,” reported May Y. Choi, MD, associate director of translational research at the University of Calgary’s (Alta.) Lupus Centre of Excellence.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

It is well known that patients with SLE face an increased risk of CV events starting at an age long before risk begins climbing in the general population, according to Dr. Choi. She cited one study that showed women aged 35-44 years have a 50-fold greater risk of myocardial infarction than healthy individuals.

All major guidelines recognize this increased risk and recommend CV risk assessment in patients with SLE, even though Dr. Choi pointed out that traditional tools, such as the American College of Cardiology atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator or the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) have a limited ability to detect the patients with SLE who are most likely to have an event.
 

In SLE, current tools are inadequate

“These risk assessment tools perform poorly in SLE patients because they do not capture SLE-related inflammation,” Dr. Choi said. Of several examples, Dr. Choi cited a study showing “seven times more MIs and strokes observed than expected in SLE patients on the basis of the FRS.”

The disparity between expected and observed MIs and strokes is worse with increasing severity of SLE. In a study she presented 3 years ago, rates of CV events were 12 times higher in those with inactive or mild SLE, rising to a 16-fold increase among those with moderate disease and jumping to a 32-fold increase in those with severe SLE.

The SLECRISK tool was developed from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital SLE Registry, which was initiated in 1992. Patients without a history of CV disease were evaluated for traditional CV risk factors and for SLE-specific characteristics such as disease activity, levels of the complement proteins C3 and C4, kidney function, the presence of nephritis, and SLE duration. The value of these characteristics as predictors of CV events were then assessed over a 10-year follow-up period before being assembled into the SLECRISK tool.

In an example of the risk equation, Dr. Choi described a 50-year-old patient with SLE and a 5% 10-year ASCVD risk score, which is low. After adjustment for SLE risks, which included 10 years disease duration, high disease activity, elevated creatinine, and positive anti–double stranded DNA status, the 10-year CV risk score climbed to 16.2%, which is moderate.

The performance of the SLECRISK was evaluated in 1,243 patients providing 8,946.51 person-years of follow-up. During this period, there were 90 major adverse cardiac events (MACE), of which 82% were adjudicated by cardiologists, and 211 secondary events.

Relative to the ASCVD risk score, the SLECRISK identified about twice as many patients with SLE as having moderate risk and 3.5-fold more patients as having high risk. Among patients who experienced CV events, traditional CV risk factors were more common but so were SLE-specific risk factors, including greater disease severity, a greater likelihood of lupus nephritis, increased complement levels, and greater exposure to glucocorticoids, according to Dr. Choi.

Specificities for CV events higher on SLECRISK

In predicting CV events, the differences in specificities were in the same general range, although somewhat higher for the ASCVD risk score in regard to predicting MACE (83% vs. 72%) and MACE plus secondary events (90% vs. 79%). However, the sensitivities were much higher for SLECRISK relative to the ASCVD risk score for MACE alone (64% vs. 41%) and for MACE plus secondary events (58% vs. 35%).

When comparing those who had an MI or stroke, the ASCVD risk score identified 8 (7%) patients missed by SLECRISK, whereas SLECRISK identified 89 (73%) missed by the ASCVD risk score. The remaining 25 patients (20%) were identified by both. The advantage of SLECRISK was similar for MACE plus secondary outcomes.

Dr. Choi noted that all of the SLE-specific variables in SLECRISK are readily obtained and often already available in patient charts. She said that there is a plan to validate the tool in larger groups, but with a goal of creating a tool available online for clinicians and their patients to use. There is also an even more ambitious plan for the future.

“We have funding to look at machine learning to evaluate predictive variables in SLE patients,” Dr. Choi said. Rather than adding SLE-specific variables to traditional risks, the plan is to “start from scratch,” letting artificial intelligence assemble predictors without prejudice to what might or might not be relevant.

A SLE-specific tool for evaluating CV risk is an important “unmet need,” according to Karen H. Costenbader, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In an interview, she reiterated that measuring CV risk in SLE is already guideline recommended, but conventional tools have been shown to be inaccurate.

“I can envision it being used in clinical encounters to help guide shared decision-making with patients,” explained Dr. Costenbader, who was not involved in the presentation at the CRA meeting but worked with Dr. Choi in developing SLECRISK. “It would give us more precise estimates, allowing us to risk stratify our patients and informing us as to which modifiable SLE-specific and nonspecific factors are contributing most to CV risk.’

The problem of using conventional risk assessments in SLE has been well recognized. Of those who have written on this subject, Maureen McMahon, MD, site director of the Lupus Clinical Trials Network at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “There is a critical need for the development of SLE-specific risk assessment tools like SLECRISK.”

Author of several studies looking at alternatives for CV risk assessment in SLE, including a study looking at a panel of biomarkers that was published in ACR Open Rheumatology, Dr. McMahon said in an interview that CV risk in SLE is high but conventional risk assessments are flawed.

“Multiple previous studies have demonstrated that these currently available calculators are not adequate for identifying risk in the lupus patient population,” she said. According to Dr. McMahon, the fact that rheumatologists remain “dependent upon [these conventional] cardiovascular risk calculators” is a well-recognized problem that needs resolution.

Dr. Choi has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mallinckrodt. MitogenDx, Organon, and Werfen International. Dr. Costenbader reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. McMahon has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and GlaxoSmithKline.

A tool that incorporates lupus-related variables with traditional risk factors provides a much more accurate assessment of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

In the initial clinical assessment of this tool, called the SLECRISK, “it identified high-risk lupus patients who would otherwise be missed by traditional methods of CV risk assessment,” reported May Y. Choi, MD, associate director of translational research at the University of Calgary’s (Alta.) Lupus Centre of Excellence.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

It is well known that patients with SLE face an increased risk of CV events starting at an age long before risk begins climbing in the general population, according to Dr. Choi. She cited one study that showed women aged 35-44 years have a 50-fold greater risk of myocardial infarction than healthy individuals.

All major guidelines recognize this increased risk and recommend CV risk assessment in patients with SLE, even though Dr. Choi pointed out that traditional tools, such as the American College of Cardiology atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator or the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) have a limited ability to detect the patients with SLE who are most likely to have an event.
 

In SLE, current tools are inadequate

“These risk assessment tools perform poorly in SLE patients because they do not capture SLE-related inflammation,” Dr. Choi said. Of several examples, Dr. Choi cited a study showing “seven times more MIs and strokes observed than expected in SLE patients on the basis of the FRS.”

The disparity between expected and observed MIs and strokes is worse with increasing severity of SLE. In a study she presented 3 years ago, rates of CV events were 12 times higher in those with inactive or mild SLE, rising to a 16-fold increase among those with moderate disease and jumping to a 32-fold increase in those with severe SLE.

The SLECRISK tool was developed from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital SLE Registry, which was initiated in 1992. Patients without a history of CV disease were evaluated for traditional CV risk factors and for SLE-specific characteristics such as disease activity, levels of the complement proteins C3 and C4, kidney function, the presence of nephritis, and SLE duration. The value of these characteristics as predictors of CV events were then assessed over a 10-year follow-up period before being assembled into the SLECRISK tool.

In an example of the risk equation, Dr. Choi described a 50-year-old patient with SLE and a 5% 10-year ASCVD risk score, which is low. After adjustment for SLE risks, which included 10 years disease duration, high disease activity, elevated creatinine, and positive anti–double stranded DNA status, the 10-year CV risk score climbed to 16.2%, which is moderate.

The performance of the SLECRISK was evaluated in 1,243 patients providing 8,946.51 person-years of follow-up. During this period, there were 90 major adverse cardiac events (MACE), of which 82% were adjudicated by cardiologists, and 211 secondary events.

Relative to the ASCVD risk score, the SLECRISK identified about twice as many patients with SLE as having moderate risk and 3.5-fold more patients as having high risk. Among patients who experienced CV events, traditional CV risk factors were more common but so were SLE-specific risk factors, including greater disease severity, a greater likelihood of lupus nephritis, increased complement levels, and greater exposure to glucocorticoids, according to Dr. Choi.

Specificities for CV events higher on SLECRISK

In predicting CV events, the differences in specificities were in the same general range, although somewhat higher for the ASCVD risk score in regard to predicting MACE (83% vs. 72%) and MACE plus secondary events (90% vs. 79%). However, the sensitivities were much higher for SLECRISK relative to the ASCVD risk score for MACE alone (64% vs. 41%) and for MACE plus secondary events (58% vs. 35%).

When comparing those who had an MI or stroke, the ASCVD risk score identified 8 (7%) patients missed by SLECRISK, whereas SLECRISK identified 89 (73%) missed by the ASCVD risk score. The remaining 25 patients (20%) were identified by both. The advantage of SLECRISK was similar for MACE plus secondary outcomes.

Dr. Choi noted that all of the SLE-specific variables in SLECRISK are readily obtained and often already available in patient charts. She said that there is a plan to validate the tool in larger groups, but with a goal of creating a tool available online for clinicians and their patients to use. There is also an even more ambitious plan for the future.

“We have funding to look at machine learning to evaluate predictive variables in SLE patients,” Dr. Choi said. Rather than adding SLE-specific variables to traditional risks, the plan is to “start from scratch,” letting artificial intelligence assemble predictors without prejudice to what might or might not be relevant.

A SLE-specific tool for evaluating CV risk is an important “unmet need,” according to Karen H. Costenbader, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In an interview, she reiterated that measuring CV risk in SLE is already guideline recommended, but conventional tools have been shown to be inaccurate.

“I can envision it being used in clinical encounters to help guide shared decision-making with patients,” explained Dr. Costenbader, who was not involved in the presentation at the CRA meeting but worked with Dr. Choi in developing SLECRISK. “It would give us more precise estimates, allowing us to risk stratify our patients and informing us as to which modifiable SLE-specific and nonspecific factors are contributing most to CV risk.’

The problem of using conventional risk assessments in SLE has been well recognized. Of those who have written on this subject, Maureen McMahon, MD, site director of the Lupus Clinical Trials Network at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “There is a critical need for the development of SLE-specific risk assessment tools like SLECRISK.”

Author of several studies looking at alternatives for CV risk assessment in SLE, including a study looking at a panel of biomarkers that was published in ACR Open Rheumatology, Dr. McMahon said in an interview that CV risk in SLE is high but conventional risk assessments are flawed.

“Multiple previous studies have demonstrated that these currently available calculators are not adequate for identifying risk in the lupus patient population,” she said. According to Dr. McMahon, the fact that rheumatologists remain “dependent upon [these conventional] cardiovascular risk calculators” is a well-recognized problem that needs resolution.

Dr. Choi has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mallinckrodt. MitogenDx, Organon, and Werfen International. Dr. Costenbader reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. McMahon has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and GlaxoSmithKline.

A tool that incorporates lupus-related variables with traditional risk factors provides a much more accurate assessment of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

In the initial clinical assessment of this tool, called the SLECRISK, “it identified high-risk lupus patients who would otherwise be missed by traditional methods of CV risk assessment,” reported May Y. Choi, MD, associate director of translational research at the University of Calgary’s (Alta.) Lupus Centre of Excellence.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

It is well known that patients with SLE face an increased risk of CV events starting at an age long before risk begins climbing in the general population, according to Dr. Choi. She cited one study that showed women aged 35-44 years have a 50-fold greater risk of myocardial infarction than healthy individuals.

All major guidelines recognize this increased risk and recommend CV risk assessment in patients with SLE, even though Dr. Choi pointed out that traditional tools, such as the American College of Cardiology atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator or the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) have a limited ability to detect the patients with SLE who are most likely to have an event.
 

In SLE, current tools are inadequate

“These risk assessment tools perform poorly in SLE patients because they do not capture SLE-related inflammation,” Dr. Choi said. Of several examples, Dr. Choi cited a study showing “seven times more MIs and strokes observed than expected in SLE patients on the basis of the FRS.”

The disparity between expected and observed MIs and strokes is worse with increasing severity of SLE. In a study she presented 3 years ago, rates of CV events were 12 times higher in those with inactive or mild SLE, rising to a 16-fold increase among those with moderate disease and jumping to a 32-fold increase in those with severe SLE.

The SLECRISK tool was developed from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital SLE Registry, which was initiated in 1992. Patients without a history of CV disease were evaluated for traditional CV risk factors and for SLE-specific characteristics such as disease activity, levels of the complement proteins C3 and C4, kidney function, the presence of nephritis, and SLE duration. The value of these characteristics as predictors of CV events were then assessed over a 10-year follow-up period before being assembled into the SLECRISK tool.

In an example of the risk equation, Dr. Choi described a 50-year-old patient with SLE and a 5% 10-year ASCVD risk score, which is low. After adjustment for SLE risks, which included 10 years disease duration, high disease activity, elevated creatinine, and positive anti–double stranded DNA status, the 10-year CV risk score climbed to 16.2%, which is moderate.

The performance of the SLECRISK was evaluated in 1,243 patients providing 8,946.51 person-years of follow-up. During this period, there were 90 major adverse cardiac events (MACE), of which 82% were adjudicated by cardiologists, and 211 secondary events.

Relative to the ASCVD risk score, the SLECRISK identified about twice as many patients with SLE as having moderate risk and 3.5-fold more patients as having high risk. Among patients who experienced CV events, traditional CV risk factors were more common but so were SLE-specific risk factors, including greater disease severity, a greater likelihood of lupus nephritis, increased complement levels, and greater exposure to glucocorticoids, according to Dr. Choi.

Specificities for CV events higher on SLECRISK

In predicting CV events, the differences in specificities were in the same general range, although somewhat higher for the ASCVD risk score in regard to predicting MACE (83% vs. 72%) and MACE plus secondary events (90% vs. 79%). However, the sensitivities were much higher for SLECRISK relative to the ASCVD risk score for MACE alone (64% vs. 41%) and for MACE plus secondary events (58% vs. 35%).

When comparing those who had an MI or stroke, the ASCVD risk score identified 8 (7%) patients missed by SLECRISK, whereas SLECRISK identified 89 (73%) missed by the ASCVD risk score. The remaining 25 patients (20%) were identified by both. The advantage of SLECRISK was similar for MACE plus secondary outcomes.

Dr. Choi noted that all of the SLE-specific variables in SLECRISK are readily obtained and often already available in patient charts. She said that there is a plan to validate the tool in larger groups, but with a goal of creating a tool available online for clinicians and their patients to use. There is also an even more ambitious plan for the future.

“We have funding to look at machine learning to evaluate predictive variables in SLE patients,” Dr. Choi said. Rather than adding SLE-specific variables to traditional risks, the plan is to “start from scratch,” letting artificial intelligence assemble predictors without prejudice to what might or might not be relevant.

A SLE-specific tool for evaluating CV risk is an important “unmet need,” according to Karen H. Costenbader, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In an interview, she reiterated that measuring CV risk in SLE is already guideline recommended, but conventional tools have been shown to be inaccurate.

“I can envision it being used in clinical encounters to help guide shared decision-making with patients,” explained Dr. Costenbader, who was not involved in the presentation at the CRA meeting but worked with Dr. Choi in developing SLECRISK. “It would give us more precise estimates, allowing us to risk stratify our patients and informing us as to which modifiable SLE-specific and nonspecific factors are contributing most to CV risk.’

The problem of using conventional risk assessments in SLE has been well recognized. Of those who have written on this subject, Maureen McMahon, MD, site director of the Lupus Clinical Trials Network at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “There is a critical need for the development of SLE-specific risk assessment tools like SLECRISK.”

Author of several studies looking at alternatives for CV risk assessment in SLE, including a study looking at a panel of biomarkers that was published in ACR Open Rheumatology, Dr. McMahon said in an interview that CV risk in SLE is high but conventional risk assessments are flawed.

“Multiple previous studies have demonstrated that these currently available calculators are not adequate for identifying risk in the lupus patient population,” she said. According to Dr. McMahon, the fact that rheumatologists remain “dependent upon [these conventional] cardiovascular risk calculators” is a well-recognized problem that needs resolution.

Dr. Choi has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mallinckrodt. MitogenDx, Organon, and Werfen International. Dr. Costenbader reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. McMahon has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and GlaxoSmithKline.

The increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection has persisted into the Omicron era, but vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to diminish that likelihood, new data suggest.

The findings, from more than 20,000 patients in the Cedars-Sinai Health System in Los Angeles, suggest that “continued efforts to prevent COVID-19 infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the effects of potential long-term effects of COVID-19,” lead author Alan C. Kwan, MD, of the department of cardiology at Cedars Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute, said in an interview.

Several studies conducted early in the pandemic suggested increased risks for both new-onset diabetes and cardiometabolic diseases following COVID-19 infection, possibly because of persistent inflammation contributing to insulin resistance.

However, it hasn’t been clear if those risks have persisted with the more recent predominance of the less-virulent Omicron variant or whether the COVID-19 vaccine influences the risk. This new study suggests that both are the case.

“Our results verify that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes after a COVID-19 infection was not just an early observation but, in fact, a real risk that has, unfortunately, persisted through the Omicron era,” Dr. Kwan noted.

“While the level of evidence by our study and others may not reach the degree needed to affect formal guidelines at this time, we believe it is reasonable to have increased clinical suspicion for diabetes after COVID-19 infection and a lower threshold for testing,” he added.

Moreover, “we believe that our study and others suggest the potential role of COVID-19 to affect cardiovascular risk, and so both prevention of COVID-19 infection, through reasonable personal practices and vaccination, and an increased attention to cardiovascular health after COVID-19 infection is warranted.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Kwan and colleagues analyzed data for a total of 23,709 patients treated (inpatient and outpatient) for at least one COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and June 2022.

Rates of new-onset diabetes (using ICD-10 codes, primarily type 2 diabetes), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were all elevated in the 90 days following COVID-19 infection compared with the 90 days prior. The same was true of two diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19, urinary tract infection and gastroesophageal reflux, used as benchmarks of health care engagement.

The highest odds for post versus preinfection were for diabetes (odds ratio, 2.35; P < .001), followed by hypertension (OR, 1.54; P < .001), the benchmark diagnoses (OR, 1.42; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.22; P = .03).

Following adjustments, the risk versus the benchmark conditions for new-onset diabetes before versus after COVID-19 was significantly elevated (OR, 1.58; P < .001), while the risks for hypertension and hyperlipidemia versus benchmark diagnoses were not (OR, 1.06; P = .52 and 0.91, P = .43, respectively).

The diabetes risk after versus before COVID-19 infection was higher among those who had not been vaccinated (OR, 1.78; P < .001), compared with those who had received the vaccine (OR, 1.07; P = .80).

However, there was no significant interaction between vaccination and diabetes diagnosis (P = .08). “For this reason, we believe our data are suggestive of a protective effect in the population who received vaccination prior to infection, but [this is] not definitive,” Dr. Kwan said.

There were no apparent interactions by age, sex, or pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension or hyperlipidemia. Age, sex, and timing of index infection regarding the Omicron variant were not associated with an increased risk of a new cardiometabolic diagnosis before or after COVID-19 infection in any of the models.

Dr. Kwan said in an interview: “We have continued to be surprised by the evolving understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the effects on human health. In the beginning of the pandemic it was framed as a purely respiratory virus, which we now know to be a severely limited description of all of its potential effects on the human body. We believe that our research and others raise a concern for increased cardiometabolic risk after COVID infection.”

He added that, “while knowledge is incomplete on this topic, we believe that clinical providers may wish to have a higher degree of suspicion for both diabetes and risk of future cardiac events in patients after COVID infection, and that continued efforts to prevent COVID infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the potential long-term effects of COVID.”

This study was funded by the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kwan reported receiving grants from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

The increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection has persisted into the Omicron era, but vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to diminish that likelihood, new data suggest.

The findings, from more than 20,000 patients in the Cedars-Sinai Health System in Los Angeles, suggest that “continued efforts to prevent COVID-19 infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the effects of potential long-term effects of COVID-19,” lead author Alan C. Kwan, MD, of the department of cardiology at Cedars Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute, said in an interview.

Several studies conducted early in the pandemic suggested increased risks for both new-onset diabetes and cardiometabolic diseases following COVID-19 infection, possibly because of persistent inflammation contributing to insulin resistance.

However, it hasn’t been clear if those risks have persisted with the more recent predominance of the less-virulent Omicron variant or whether the COVID-19 vaccine influences the risk. This new study suggests that both are the case.

“Our results verify that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes after a COVID-19 infection was not just an early observation but, in fact, a real risk that has, unfortunately, persisted through the Omicron era,” Dr. Kwan noted.

“While the level of evidence by our study and others may not reach the degree needed to affect formal guidelines at this time, we believe it is reasonable to have increased clinical suspicion for diabetes after COVID-19 infection and a lower threshold for testing,” he added.

Moreover, “we believe that our study and others suggest the potential role of COVID-19 to affect cardiovascular risk, and so both prevention of COVID-19 infection, through reasonable personal practices and vaccination, and an increased attention to cardiovascular health after COVID-19 infection is warranted.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Kwan and colleagues analyzed data for a total of 23,709 patients treated (inpatient and outpatient) for at least one COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and June 2022.

Rates of new-onset diabetes (using ICD-10 codes, primarily type 2 diabetes), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were all elevated in the 90 days following COVID-19 infection compared with the 90 days prior. The same was true of two diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19, urinary tract infection and gastroesophageal reflux, used as benchmarks of health care engagement.

The highest odds for post versus preinfection were for diabetes (odds ratio, 2.35; P < .001), followed by hypertension (OR, 1.54; P < .001), the benchmark diagnoses (OR, 1.42; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.22; P = .03).

Following adjustments, the risk versus the benchmark conditions for new-onset diabetes before versus after COVID-19 was significantly elevated (OR, 1.58; P < .001), while the risks for hypertension and hyperlipidemia versus benchmark diagnoses were not (OR, 1.06; P = .52 and 0.91, P = .43, respectively).

The diabetes risk after versus before COVID-19 infection was higher among those who had not been vaccinated (OR, 1.78; P < .001), compared with those who had received the vaccine (OR, 1.07; P = .80).

However, there was no significant interaction between vaccination and diabetes diagnosis (P = .08). “For this reason, we believe our data are suggestive of a protective effect in the population who received vaccination prior to infection, but [this is] not definitive,” Dr. Kwan said.

There were no apparent interactions by age, sex, or pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension or hyperlipidemia. Age, sex, and timing of index infection regarding the Omicron variant were not associated with an increased risk of a new cardiometabolic diagnosis before or after COVID-19 infection in any of the models.

Dr. Kwan said in an interview: “We have continued to be surprised by the evolving understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the effects on human health. In the beginning of the pandemic it was framed as a purely respiratory virus, which we now know to be a severely limited description of all of its potential effects on the human body. We believe that our research and others raise a concern for increased cardiometabolic risk after COVID infection.”

He added that, “while knowledge is incomplete on this topic, we believe that clinical providers may wish to have a higher degree of suspicion for both diabetes and risk of future cardiac events in patients after COVID infection, and that continued efforts to prevent COVID infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the potential long-term effects of COVID.”

This study was funded by the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kwan reported receiving grants from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

The increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection has persisted into the Omicron era, but vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to diminish that likelihood, new data suggest.

The findings, from more than 20,000 patients in the Cedars-Sinai Health System in Los Angeles, suggest that “continued efforts to prevent COVID-19 infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the effects of potential long-term effects of COVID-19,” lead author Alan C. Kwan, MD, of the department of cardiology at Cedars Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute, said in an interview.

Several studies conducted early in the pandemic suggested increased risks for both new-onset diabetes and cardiometabolic diseases following COVID-19 infection, possibly because of persistent inflammation contributing to insulin resistance.

However, it hasn’t been clear if those risks have persisted with the more recent predominance of the less-virulent Omicron variant or whether the COVID-19 vaccine influences the risk. This new study suggests that both are the case.

“Our results verify that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes after a COVID-19 infection was not just an early observation but, in fact, a real risk that has, unfortunately, persisted through the Omicron era,” Dr. Kwan noted.

“While the level of evidence by our study and others may not reach the degree needed to affect formal guidelines at this time, we believe it is reasonable to have increased clinical suspicion for diabetes after COVID-19 infection and a lower threshold for testing,” he added.

Moreover, “we believe that our study and others suggest the potential role of COVID-19 to affect cardiovascular risk, and so both prevention of COVID-19 infection, through reasonable personal practices and vaccination, and an increased attention to cardiovascular health after COVID-19 infection is warranted.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Kwan and colleagues analyzed data for a total of 23,709 patients treated (inpatient and outpatient) for at least one COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and June 2022.

Rates of new-onset diabetes (using ICD-10 codes, primarily type 2 diabetes), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were all elevated in the 90 days following COVID-19 infection compared with the 90 days prior. The same was true of two diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19, urinary tract infection and gastroesophageal reflux, used as benchmarks of health care engagement.

The highest odds for post versus preinfection were for diabetes (odds ratio, 2.35; P < .001), followed by hypertension (OR, 1.54; P < .001), the benchmark diagnoses (OR, 1.42; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.22; P = .03).

Following adjustments, the risk versus the benchmark conditions for new-onset diabetes before versus after COVID-19 was significantly elevated (OR, 1.58; P < .001), while the risks for hypertension and hyperlipidemia versus benchmark diagnoses were not (OR, 1.06; P = .52 and 0.91, P = .43, respectively).

The diabetes risk after versus before COVID-19 infection was higher among those who had not been vaccinated (OR, 1.78; P < .001), compared with those who had received the vaccine (OR, 1.07; P = .80).

However, there was no significant interaction between vaccination and diabetes diagnosis (P = .08). “For this reason, we believe our data are suggestive of a protective effect in the population who received vaccination prior to infection, but [this is] not definitive,” Dr. Kwan said.

There were no apparent interactions by age, sex, or pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension or hyperlipidemia. Age, sex, and timing of index infection regarding the Omicron variant were not associated with an increased risk of a new cardiometabolic diagnosis before or after COVID-19 infection in any of the models.

Dr. Kwan said in an interview: “We have continued to be surprised by the evolving understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the effects on human health. In the beginning of the pandemic it was framed as a purely respiratory virus, which we now know to be a severely limited description of all of its potential effects on the human body. We believe that our research and others raise a concern for increased cardiometabolic risk after COVID infection.”

He added that, “while knowledge is incomplete on this topic, we believe that clinical providers may wish to have a higher degree of suspicion for both diabetes and risk of future cardiac events in patients after COVID infection, and that continued efforts to prevent COVID infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the potential long-term effects of COVID.”

This study was funded by the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kwan reported receiving grants from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

A new meta-analysis has added evidence questioning the utility and efficacy of prophylactic low-dose aspirin for preventing cardiovascular events in people who don’t have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), whether or not they’re also taking statins, and finds that at every level of ASCVD risk the aspirin carries a risk of major bleeding that exceeds its potentially protective benefits.

In a study published online in JACC: Advances, the researchers, led by Safi U. Khan, MD, MS, analyzed data from 16 trials with 171,215 individuals, with a median age of 64 years. Of the population analyzed, 35% were taking statins.

“This study focused on patients without ASCVD who are taking aspirin with or without statin therapy to prevent ASCVD events,” Dr. Khan, a cardiovascular disease fellow at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Institute, told this news organization. “We noted that the absolute risk of major bleeding in this patient population exceeds the absolute reduction in MI by aspirin across different ASCVD risk categories. Furthermore, concomitant statin therapy use further diminishes aspirin’s cardiovascular effects without influencing bleeding risk.”

Across the 16 studies, people taking aspirin had a relative risk reduction of 15% for MI vs. controls (RR .85; 95% confidence interval [CI], .77 to .95; P < .001). However, they had a 48% greater risk of major bleeding (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.31-1.66; P < .001).

The meta-analysis also found that aspirin, either as monotherapy or with a statin, carried a slight to significant benefit depending on the estimated risk of developing ASCVD. The risk of major bleeding exceeded the benefit across all three risk-stratified groups. The greatest benefit, and greatest risk, was in the groups with high to very-high ASCVD risk groups, defined as a 20%-30% and 30% or greater ASCVD risk, respectively: 20-37 fewer MIs per 10,000 with monotherapy and 27-49 fewer with statin, but 78-98 more major bleeding events with monotherapy and 74-95 more with statin.

And aspirin, either as monotherapy or with statin, didn’t reduce the risk of other key endpoints: stroke, all-cause mortality, or cardiovascular mortality. While aspirin was associated with a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR, .82; 95% CI, .72 to .94; P ≤. 001), it  wasn’t associated with reducing the risk of nonfatal stroke. Aspirin patients had a significantly 32% greater risk of intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P ≤ .001) and 51% increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.33-1.72; P ≤ .001).

“We used randomized data from all key primary prevention of aspirin trials and estimated the absolute effects of aspirin therapy with or without concomitant statin across different baseline risks of the patients,” Dr. Khan said. “This approach allowed us to identify aspirin therapy’s risk-benefit equilibrium, which is tilted towards more harm than benefit.”

He acknowledged study limitations included using study-level rather than patient-level meta-analysis, and the inability to calculate effects in younger populations at high absolute risk.  

The investigators acknowledged the controversy surrounding aspirin use to prevent ASCVD, noting the three major guidelines: the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for aspirin only among asymptomatic individuals with high risk of ASCVD events, low bleeding risk, and age 70 years and younger; and the United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, updated in 2022, recommending individualized low-dose aspirin only among adults ages 40-59 years with 10-year ASCVD risk of 10% or greater and a low bleeding risk.

The findings are not a clarion call to halt aspirin therapy, Dr. Khan said. “This research focuses only on patients who do not have ASCVD,” he said. “Patients who do have ASCVD should continue with aspirin and statin therapy. However, we noted that aspirin has a limited role for patients who do not have ASCVD beyond lifestyle modifications, smoking cessation, exercise, and preventive statin therapy. Therefore, they should only consider using aspirin if their physicians suggest that the risk of having a cardiovascular event exceeds their bleeding risk. Otherwise, they should discuss with their physicians about omitting aspirin.”

The study confirms the move away from low-dose aspirin to prevent ASCVD, said Tahmid Rahman, MD, cardiologist and associate director of the Center for Advanced Lipid Management at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Heart Institute. “The study really continues to add to essentially what we already know,” he said. “There was a big push that aspirin, initially before the major statin trials, was the way to go to prevent heart disease, but with later studies, and especially now with newer antiplatelet therapies and longer duration of medication for people with both secondary prevention and primary prevention, we are getting away from routine aspirin, especially in primary prevention.”

A new meta-analysis has added evidence questioning the utility and efficacy of prophylactic low-dose aspirin for preventing cardiovascular events in people who don’t have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), whether or not they’re also taking statins, and finds that at every level of ASCVD risk the aspirin carries a risk of major bleeding that exceeds its potentially protective benefits.

In a study published online in JACC: Advances, the researchers, led by Safi U. Khan, MD, MS, analyzed data from 16 trials with 171,215 individuals, with a median age of 64 years. Of the population analyzed, 35% were taking statins.

“This study focused on patients without ASCVD who are taking aspirin with or without statin therapy to prevent ASCVD events,” Dr. Khan, a cardiovascular disease fellow at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Institute, told this news organization. “We noted that the absolute risk of major bleeding in this patient population exceeds the absolute reduction in MI by aspirin across different ASCVD risk categories. Furthermore, concomitant statin therapy use further diminishes aspirin’s cardiovascular effects without influencing bleeding risk.”

Across the 16 studies, people taking aspirin had a relative risk reduction of 15% for MI vs. controls (RR .85; 95% confidence interval [CI], .77 to .95; P < .001). However, they had a 48% greater risk of major bleeding (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.31-1.66; P < .001).

The meta-analysis also found that aspirin, either as monotherapy or with a statin, carried a slight to significant benefit depending on the estimated risk of developing ASCVD. The risk of major bleeding exceeded the benefit across all three risk-stratified groups. The greatest benefit, and greatest risk, was in the groups with high to very-high ASCVD risk groups, defined as a 20%-30% and 30% or greater ASCVD risk, respectively: 20-37 fewer MIs per 10,000 with monotherapy and 27-49 fewer with statin, but 78-98 more major bleeding events with monotherapy and 74-95 more with statin.

And aspirin, either as monotherapy or with statin, didn’t reduce the risk of other key endpoints: stroke, all-cause mortality, or cardiovascular mortality. While aspirin was associated with a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR, .82; 95% CI, .72 to .94; P ≤. 001), it  wasn’t associated with reducing the risk of nonfatal stroke. Aspirin patients had a significantly 32% greater risk of intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P ≤ .001) and 51% increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.33-1.72; P ≤ .001).

“We used randomized data from all key primary prevention of aspirin trials and estimated the absolute effects of aspirin therapy with or without concomitant statin across different baseline risks of the patients,” Dr. Khan said. “This approach allowed us to identify aspirin therapy’s risk-benefit equilibrium, which is tilted towards more harm than benefit.”

He acknowledged study limitations included using study-level rather than patient-level meta-analysis, and the inability to calculate effects in younger populations at high absolute risk.  

The investigators acknowledged the controversy surrounding aspirin use to prevent ASCVD, noting the three major guidelines: the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for aspirin only among asymptomatic individuals with high risk of ASCVD events, low bleeding risk, and age 70 years and younger; and the United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, updated in 2022, recommending individualized low-dose aspirin only among adults ages 40-59 years with 10-year ASCVD risk of 10% or greater and a low bleeding risk.

The findings are not a clarion call to halt aspirin therapy, Dr. Khan said. “This research focuses only on patients who do not have ASCVD,” he said. “Patients who do have ASCVD should continue with aspirin and statin therapy. However, we noted that aspirin has a limited role for patients who do not have ASCVD beyond lifestyle modifications, smoking cessation, exercise, and preventive statin therapy. Therefore, they should only consider using aspirin if their physicians suggest that the risk of having a cardiovascular event exceeds their bleeding risk. Otherwise, they should discuss with their physicians about omitting aspirin.”

The study confirms the move away from low-dose aspirin to prevent ASCVD, said Tahmid Rahman, MD, cardiologist and associate director of the Center for Advanced Lipid Management at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Heart Institute. “The study really continues to add to essentially what we already know,” he said. “There was a big push that aspirin, initially before the major statin trials, was the way to go to prevent heart disease, but with later studies, and especially now with newer antiplatelet therapies and longer duration of medication for people with both secondary prevention and primary prevention, we are getting away from routine aspirin, especially in primary prevention.”

A new meta-analysis has added evidence questioning the utility and efficacy of prophylactic low-dose aspirin for preventing cardiovascular events in people who don’t have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), whether or not they’re also taking statins, and finds that at every level of ASCVD risk the aspirin carries a risk of major bleeding that exceeds its potentially protective benefits.

In a study published online in JACC: Advances, the researchers, led by Safi U. Khan, MD, MS, analyzed data from 16 trials with 171,215 individuals, with a median age of 64 years. Of the population analyzed, 35% were taking statins.

“This study focused on patients without ASCVD who are taking aspirin with or without statin therapy to prevent ASCVD events,” Dr. Khan, a cardiovascular disease fellow at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Institute, told this news organization. “We noted that the absolute risk of major bleeding in this patient population exceeds the absolute reduction in MI by aspirin across different ASCVD risk categories. Furthermore, concomitant statin therapy use further diminishes aspirin’s cardiovascular effects without influencing bleeding risk.”

Across the 16 studies, people taking aspirin had a relative risk reduction of 15% for MI vs. controls (RR .85; 95% confidence interval [CI], .77 to .95; P < .001). However, they had a 48% greater risk of major bleeding (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.31-1.66; P < .001).

The meta-analysis also found that aspirin, either as monotherapy or with a statin, carried a slight to significant benefit depending on the estimated risk of developing ASCVD. The risk of major bleeding exceeded the benefit across all three risk-stratified groups. The greatest benefit, and greatest risk, was in the groups with high to very-high ASCVD risk groups, defined as a 20%-30% and 30% or greater ASCVD risk, respectively: 20-37 fewer MIs per 10,000 with monotherapy and 27-49 fewer with statin, but 78-98 more major bleeding events with monotherapy and 74-95 more with statin.

And aspirin, either as monotherapy or with statin, didn’t reduce the risk of other key endpoints: stroke, all-cause mortality, or cardiovascular mortality. While aspirin was associated with a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR, .82; 95% CI, .72 to .94; P ≤. 001), it  wasn’t associated with reducing the risk of nonfatal stroke. Aspirin patients had a significantly 32% greater risk of intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P ≤ .001) and 51% increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.33-1.72; P ≤ .001).

“We used randomized data from all key primary prevention of aspirin trials and estimated the absolute effects of aspirin therapy with or without concomitant statin across different baseline risks of the patients,” Dr. Khan said. “This approach allowed us to identify aspirin therapy’s risk-benefit equilibrium, which is tilted towards more harm than benefit.”

He acknowledged study limitations included using study-level rather than patient-level meta-analysis, and the inability to calculate effects in younger populations at high absolute risk.  

The investigators acknowledged the controversy surrounding aspirin use to prevent ASCVD, noting the three major guidelines: the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for aspirin only among asymptomatic individuals with high risk of ASCVD events, low bleeding risk, and age 70 years and younger; and the United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, updated in 2022, recommending individualized low-dose aspirin only among adults ages 40-59 years with 10-year ASCVD risk of 10% or greater and a low bleeding risk.

The findings are not a clarion call to halt aspirin therapy, Dr. Khan said. “This research focuses only on patients who do not have ASCVD,” he said. “Patients who do have ASCVD should continue with aspirin and statin therapy. However, we noted that aspirin has a limited role for patients who do not have ASCVD beyond lifestyle modifications, smoking cessation, exercise, and preventive statin therapy. Therefore, they should only consider using aspirin if their physicians suggest that the risk of having a cardiovascular event exceeds their bleeding risk. Otherwise, they should discuss with their physicians about omitting aspirin.”

The study confirms the move away from low-dose aspirin to prevent ASCVD, said Tahmid Rahman, MD, cardiologist and associate director of the Center for Advanced Lipid Management at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Heart Institute. “The study really continues to add to essentially what we already know,” he said. “There was a big push that aspirin, initially before the major statin trials, was the way to go to prevent heart disease, but with later studies, and especially now with newer antiplatelet therapies and longer duration of medication for people with both secondary prevention and primary prevention, we are getting away from routine aspirin, especially in primary prevention.”

A jump in natriuretic peptide levels over several years in middle-aged adults points to worsened long-term risks for incident heart failure (HF) and death. But their predicted long-term survival improves if serial testing shows a drop in those levels, suggests a new analysis based on a well-known longitudinal study cohort.

The findings support the risk-stratification potential of serial natriuretic peptide testing, which may improve on individual assays for predicting future HF. Such serial assays might also be useful for guiding therapy aimed at preventing, for example, progression to clinical HF, researchers speculate on the basis of the current study,

The analysis of almost 1,000 members of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Community) cohort had been free of clinical HF at the first of two NT-proBNP assays, which were performed 6 years apart. Their 20-year clinical risk was linked to the trajectory of NT-proBNP levels across the two earlier assays.

For example, adjusted risk of incident HF more than doubled for participants with NT-proBNP levels exceeding 125 pg/mL on both assays, compared with levels that stayed under the cut point at both assays. Their mortality risk climbed by about two-thirds.

Risk for incident HF and of death climbed 86% and 32%, respectively, if NT-proBNP levels rose over the 6 years from less than to greater than 125 pg/mL. But long-term survival improved if serial assays showed a drop from the higher to the lower level.

Rising NT-proBNP levels over several years probably reflect ongoing exposure to risk factors such as hypertension or diabetes. Conversely, decreasing NT-proBNP levels likely reflect some success at keeping such risk factors under control, propose the authors of the analysis published in JAMA Cardiology. The study was led by Xiaoming Jia, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The findings raise the possibility that reducing NT-proBNP levels through risk-factor modification, tracked by serial assays, may potentially improve long-term risk for death or incident HF.

Such therapy, guided by natriuretic peptides, might prove especially useful in asymptomatic adults with modifiable HF risk factors but without known NT-proBNP elevation or cardiac structural changes, so-called stage A HF, senior author Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, also of Baylor, observed for this news organization.

The best populations for serial NT-proBNP assays to guide therapy, Dr. Nambi said, should become clear “as more data emerges.” But the threshold for ordering such tests would probably be lower for people in stage A whose rising NT-proBNP levels later reclassify them as stage B, also called pre-HF.

In such cases, he speculated, intensified therapy of HF risk factors such as uncontrolled hypertension or diabetes – prompted by greater NT-proBNP levels at serial testing – might possibly avert progression to clinical HF.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These investigators have nicely demonstrated that one measurement of the biomarker may not be sufficient, that maybe it undercaptures the true burden of people who eventually will develop heart failure,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

The study raises the possibility “that the serial natriuretic peptide strategy may be more efficient and more comprehensive in identifying those who will eventually progress,” said Dr. Vaduganathan, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not associated with the ARIC analysis.

An open question, he added, is whether the predicted risk is modifiable. “If you are able to provide the biomarker information to treating clinicians, can they do something to attenuate the risk?”

The outlook is hopeful, given contemporary therapies “that can slow and even prevent heart failure in at-risk populations,” Dr. Vaduganathan said. For example, “The selective allocation of SGLT2 inhibitors to those with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, perhaps as captured in serial measurements, would be of great interest.”

The analysis included 9,776 adults (56.5% women, 21.3% Black) without HF who underwent NT-proBNP testing at the second and – about 6 years later – the fourth scheduled clinical visits in the ARIC study, which had enrolled persons aged 45-64 from four diverse communities from across the United States.

Adjusted hazard ratios for incident HF according to NT-proBNP changes from the first to second assays relative to 125 pg/mL were as follows:

• 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.60-2.16) when levels rose to higher than the cut point.
• 2.40 (95% CI, 2.00-2.88) when both levels exceeded the cut point.

The corresponding adjusted HRs for death from any cause were as follows:

• 1.32 (95%CI, 1.19-1.47) when levels rose to higher than 125 mg/mL.
• 1.68 (95% CI, 1.47-1.91) when both levels were above the cut point.

The risks for incident HF and for death rose significantly by 6% and 5%, respectively, per standard deviation NT-proBNP increase from the first to second assay.

Risks for HF and mortality for participants whose NT-proBNP levels declined from greater than to less than 125 pg/mL were similar to those whose levels remained low at both assays.

Cost-effectiveness would be another issue when implementing a strategy that calls for multiple biomarker assays, Dr. Vaduganathan observed.

“Surely, we would want to demonstrate that the laboratory measurement costs are offset by downstream prevention of heart failure events that could be averted by use of effective medical therapy, such SGLT2 inhibitors.”

ARIC has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Nambi discloses receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; support from Amgen; and stocks from Abbott Laboratories. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Vaduganathan has disclosed receiving grants or serving on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; speaking for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on trial committees for studies sponsored by Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics.

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

A jump in natriuretic peptide levels over several years in middle-aged adults points to worsened long-term risks for incident heart failure (HF) and death. But their predicted long-term survival improves if serial testing shows a drop in those levels, suggests a new analysis based on a well-known longitudinal study cohort.

The findings support the risk-stratification potential of serial natriuretic peptide testing, which may improve on individual assays for predicting future HF. Such serial assays might also be useful for guiding therapy aimed at preventing, for example, progression to clinical HF, researchers speculate on the basis of the current study,

The analysis of almost 1,000 members of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Community) cohort had been free of clinical HF at the first of two NT-proBNP assays, which were performed 6 years apart. Their 20-year clinical risk was linked to the trajectory of NT-proBNP levels across the two earlier assays.

For example, adjusted risk of incident HF more than doubled for participants with NT-proBNP levels exceeding 125 pg/mL on both assays, compared with levels that stayed under the cut point at both assays. Their mortality risk climbed by about two-thirds.

Risk for incident HF and of death climbed 86% and 32%, respectively, if NT-proBNP levels rose over the 6 years from less than to greater than 125 pg/mL. But long-term survival improved if serial assays showed a drop from the higher to the lower level.

Rising NT-proBNP levels over several years probably reflect ongoing exposure to risk factors such as hypertension or diabetes. Conversely, decreasing NT-proBNP levels likely reflect some success at keeping such risk factors under control, propose the authors of the analysis published in JAMA Cardiology. The study was led by Xiaoming Jia, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The findings raise the possibility that reducing NT-proBNP levels through risk-factor modification, tracked by serial assays, may potentially improve long-term risk for death or incident HF.

Such therapy, guided by natriuretic peptides, might prove especially useful in asymptomatic adults with modifiable HF risk factors but without known NT-proBNP elevation or cardiac structural changes, so-called stage A HF, senior author Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, also of Baylor, observed for this news organization.

The best populations for serial NT-proBNP assays to guide therapy, Dr. Nambi said, should become clear “as more data emerges.” But the threshold for ordering such tests would probably be lower for people in stage A whose rising NT-proBNP levels later reclassify them as stage B, also called pre-HF.

In such cases, he speculated, intensified therapy of HF risk factors such as uncontrolled hypertension or diabetes – prompted by greater NT-proBNP levels at serial testing – might possibly avert progression to clinical HF.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These investigators have nicely demonstrated that one measurement of the biomarker may not be sufficient, that maybe it undercaptures the true burden of people who eventually will develop heart failure,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

The study raises the possibility “that the serial natriuretic peptide strategy may be more efficient and more comprehensive in identifying those who will eventually progress,” said Dr. Vaduganathan, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not associated with the ARIC analysis.

An open question, he added, is whether the predicted risk is modifiable. “If you are able to provide the biomarker information to treating clinicians, can they do something to attenuate the risk?”

The outlook is hopeful, given contemporary therapies “that can slow and even prevent heart failure in at-risk populations,” Dr. Vaduganathan said. For example, “The selective allocation of SGLT2 inhibitors to those with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, perhaps as captured in serial measurements, would be of great interest.”

The analysis included 9,776 adults (56.5% women, 21.3% Black) without HF who underwent NT-proBNP testing at the second and – about 6 years later – the fourth scheduled clinical visits in the ARIC study, which had enrolled persons aged 45-64 from four diverse communities from across the United States.

Adjusted hazard ratios for incident HF according to NT-proBNP changes from the first to second assays relative to 125 pg/mL were as follows:

• 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.60-2.16) when levels rose to higher than the cut point.
• 2.40 (95% CI, 2.00-2.88) when both levels exceeded the cut point.

The corresponding adjusted HRs for death from any cause were as follows:

• 1.32 (95%CI, 1.19-1.47) when levels rose to higher than 125 mg/mL.
• 1.68 (95% CI, 1.47-1.91) when both levels were above the cut point.

The risks for incident HF and for death rose significantly by 6% and 5%, respectively, per standard deviation NT-proBNP increase from the first to second assay.

Risks for HF and mortality for participants whose NT-proBNP levels declined from greater than to less than 125 pg/mL were similar to those whose levels remained low at both assays.

Cost-effectiveness would be another issue when implementing a strategy that calls for multiple biomarker assays, Dr. Vaduganathan observed.

“Surely, we would want to demonstrate that the laboratory measurement costs are offset by downstream prevention of heart failure events that could be averted by use of effective medical therapy, such SGLT2 inhibitors.”

ARIC has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Nambi discloses receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; support from Amgen; and stocks from Abbott Laboratories. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Vaduganathan has disclosed receiving grants or serving on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; speaking for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on trial committees for studies sponsored by Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics.

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

A jump in natriuretic peptide levels over several years in middle-aged adults points to worsened long-term risks for incident heart failure (HF) and death. But their predicted long-term survival improves if serial testing shows a drop in those levels, suggests a new analysis based on a well-known longitudinal study cohort.

The findings support the risk-stratification potential of serial natriuretic peptide testing, which may improve on individual assays for predicting future HF. Such serial assays might also be useful for guiding therapy aimed at preventing, for example, progression to clinical HF, researchers speculate on the basis of the current study,

The analysis of almost 1,000 members of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Community) cohort had been free of clinical HF at the first of two NT-proBNP assays, which were performed 6 years apart. Their 20-year clinical risk was linked to the trajectory of NT-proBNP levels across the two earlier assays.

For example, adjusted risk of incident HF more than doubled for participants with NT-proBNP levels exceeding 125 pg/mL on both assays, compared with levels that stayed under the cut point at both assays. Their mortality risk climbed by about two-thirds.

Risk for incident HF and of death climbed 86% and 32%, respectively, if NT-proBNP levels rose over the 6 years from less than to greater than 125 pg/mL. But long-term survival improved if serial assays showed a drop from the higher to the lower level.

Rising NT-proBNP levels over several years probably reflect ongoing exposure to risk factors such as hypertension or diabetes. Conversely, decreasing NT-proBNP levels likely reflect some success at keeping such risk factors under control, propose the authors of the analysis published in JAMA Cardiology. The study was led by Xiaoming Jia, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The findings raise the possibility that reducing NT-proBNP levels through risk-factor modification, tracked by serial assays, may potentially improve long-term risk for death or incident HF.

Such therapy, guided by natriuretic peptides, might prove especially useful in asymptomatic adults with modifiable HF risk factors but without known NT-proBNP elevation or cardiac structural changes, so-called stage A HF, senior author Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, also of Baylor, observed for this news organization.

The best populations for serial NT-proBNP assays to guide therapy, Dr. Nambi said, should become clear “as more data emerges.” But the threshold for ordering such tests would probably be lower for people in stage A whose rising NT-proBNP levels later reclassify them as stage B, also called pre-HF.

In such cases, he speculated, intensified therapy of HF risk factors such as uncontrolled hypertension or diabetes – prompted by greater NT-proBNP levels at serial testing – might possibly avert progression to clinical HF.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These investigators have nicely demonstrated that one measurement of the biomarker may not be sufficient, that maybe it undercaptures the true burden of people who eventually will develop heart failure,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

The study raises the possibility “that the serial natriuretic peptide strategy may be more efficient and more comprehensive in identifying those who will eventually progress,” said Dr. Vaduganathan, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not associated with the ARIC analysis.

An open question, he added, is whether the predicted risk is modifiable. “If you are able to provide the biomarker information to treating clinicians, can they do something to attenuate the risk?”

The outlook is hopeful, given contemporary therapies “that can slow and even prevent heart failure in at-risk populations,” Dr. Vaduganathan said. For example, “The selective allocation of SGLT2 inhibitors to those with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, perhaps as captured in serial measurements, would be of great interest.”

The analysis included 9,776 adults (56.5% women, 21.3% Black) without HF who underwent NT-proBNP testing at the second and – about 6 years later – the fourth scheduled clinical visits in the ARIC study, which had enrolled persons aged 45-64 from four diverse communities from across the United States.

Adjusted hazard ratios for incident HF according to NT-proBNP changes from the first to second assays relative to 125 pg/mL were as follows:

• 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.60-2.16) when levels rose to higher than the cut point.
• 2.40 (95% CI, 2.00-2.88) when both levels exceeded the cut point.

The corresponding adjusted HRs for death from any cause were as follows:

• 1.32 (95%CI, 1.19-1.47) when levels rose to higher than 125 mg/mL.
• 1.68 (95% CI, 1.47-1.91) when both levels were above the cut point.

The risks for incident HF and for death rose significantly by 6% and 5%, respectively, per standard deviation NT-proBNP increase from the first to second assay.

Risks for HF and mortality for participants whose NT-proBNP levels declined from greater than to less than 125 pg/mL were similar to those whose levels remained low at both assays.

Cost-effectiveness would be another issue when implementing a strategy that calls for multiple biomarker assays, Dr. Vaduganathan observed.

“Surely, we would want to demonstrate that the laboratory measurement costs are offset by downstream prevention of heart failure events that could be averted by use of effective medical therapy, such SGLT2 inhibitors.”

ARIC has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Nambi discloses receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; support from Amgen; and stocks from Abbott Laboratories. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Vaduganathan has disclosed receiving grants or serving on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; speaking for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on trial committees for studies sponsored by Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics.

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

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high troponin levels are twice as likely to have cardiac abnormalities than those with normal troponin, with or without COVID-19, a multicenter U.K. study suggests.

The causes were diverse, myocarditis prevalence was lower than previously reported, and myocardial scar emerged as an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes at 12 months.

“We know that multiorgan involvement in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is common ... and may result in acute myocardial injury, detected by an increase in cardiac troponin concentrations,” John P. Greenwood, PhD, of the University of Leeds (England), told this news organization. “Elevated cardiac troponin is associated with a worse prognosis.”

“Multiple mechanisms of myocardial injury have been proposed and ... mitigation or prevention strategies likely depend on the underpinning mechanisms,” he said. “The sequelae of scar may predispose to late events.”

The study, published online  in Circulation, also identified a new pattern of microinfarction on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, highlighting the pro-thrombotic nature of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Greenwood said.
 

Injury patterns different

Three hundred and forty-two patients with COVID-19 and elevated troponin levels (COVID+/troponin+) across 25 centers were enrolled between June 2020 and March 2021 in COVID-HEART, deemed an “urgent public health study” in the United Kingdom. The aim was to characterize myocardial injury and its associations and sequelae in convalescent patients after hospitalization with COVID-19.

Enrollment took place during the Wuhan and Alpha waves of COVID-19: before vaccination and when dexamethasone and anticoagulant protocols were emerging. All participants underwent CMR at a median of 21 days after discharge.

Two prospective control groups also were recruited: 64 patients with COVID-19 and normal troponin levels (COVID+/troponin−) and 113 without COVID-19 or elevated troponin matched by age and cardiovascular comorbidities (COVID−/comorbidity+).

Overall, participants’ median age was 61 years and 69% were men. Common comorbidities included hypertension (47%), obesity (43%), and diabetes (25%).

The frequency of any heart abnormality – for example, left or right ventricular impairment, scar, or pericardial disease – was twice as great (61%) in COVID+/troponin+ cases, compared with controls (36% for COVID+/troponin− patients versus 31% for COVID−/comorbidity+ patients).

Specifically, more cases than controls had ventricular impairment (17.2% vs. 3.1% and 7.1%) or scar (42% vs. 7% and 23%).

The myocardial injury pattern differed between cases and controls, with cases more likely to have infarction (13% vs. 2% and 7%) or microinfarction (9% vs. 0% and 1%).

However, there was no between-group difference in nonischemic scar (13% vs. 5% and 14%).

The prevalence of probable recent myocarditis was 6.7% in cases, compared with 1.7% in controls without COVID-19 – “much lower” than in previous studies, Dr. Greenwood noted.

During follow-up, four COVID+/troponin+ patients (1.2%) died, and 34 (10%) experienced a subsequent major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; 10.2%), which was similar to controls (6.1%).

Myocardial scar, but not previous COVID-19 infection or troponin level, was an independent predictor of MACE (odds ratio, 2.25).

“These findings suggest that macroangiopathic and microangiopathic thrombosis may be the key pathologic process for myocardial injury in COVID-19 survivors,” the authors conclude.

Dr. Greenwood added, “We are currently analyzing the 6-month follow-up CMR scans, the quality-of-life questionnaires, and the 6-minute walk tests. These will give us great understanding of how the heart repairs after acute myocardial injury associated with COVID-19. It will also allow us to assess the impact on patient quality of life and functional capacity.”
 

‘Tour de force’

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and a professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said, “This is a tour de force collaboration – obtaining this many MRIs across multiple centers in the pandemic is quite remarkable. The study highlights the multiple different processes that lead to cardiac injury in COVID patients, complements autopsy studies and prior smaller MRI studies, [and] also provides the best data on the rate of myocarditis to date among the subset of COVID patients with cardiac injury.”

Overall, he said, the findings “do support closer follow-up for patients who had COVID and elevated troponins. We need to see follow-up MRI results in this cohort, as well as longer term outcomes. We also need studies on newer, more benign variants that are likely to have lower rates of cardiac injury and even fewer MRI abnormalities.”

Matthias Stuber, PhD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, both of Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland, noted in a related editorial, “We are also reminded that the clinical severity of COVID-19 is most often dictated by the presence of pre-existing comorbidity, with antecedent ischemic scar now added to the long list of bad actors. Although not the primary focus of the COVID-HEART study, the question of whether cardiac troponin levels should be checked routinely and universally during the index admission for COVID-19 remains unresolved,” they noted.

“In general, we are most effective as clinicians when we use tests to confirm or rule out the specific disease processes suspected by careful basic clinical assessment rather than in a shotgun manner among undifferentiated all-comers,” they conclude.

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high troponin levels are twice as likely to have cardiac abnormalities than those with normal troponin, with or without COVID-19, a multicenter U.K. study suggests.

The causes were diverse, myocarditis prevalence was lower than previously reported, and myocardial scar emerged as an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes at 12 months.

“We know that multiorgan involvement in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is common ... and may result in acute myocardial injury, detected by an increase in cardiac troponin concentrations,” John P. Greenwood, PhD, of the University of Leeds (England), told this news organization. “Elevated cardiac troponin is associated with a worse prognosis.”

“Multiple mechanisms of myocardial injury have been proposed and ... mitigation or prevention strategies likely depend on the underpinning mechanisms,” he said. “The sequelae of scar may predispose to late events.”

The study, published online  in Circulation, also identified a new pattern of microinfarction on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, highlighting the pro-thrombotic nature of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Greenwood said.
 

Injury patterns different

Three hundred and forty-two patients with COVID-19 and elevated troponin levels (COVID+/troponin+) across 25 centers were enrolled between June 2020 and March 2021 in COVID-HEART, deemed an “urgent public health study” in the United Kingdom. The aim was to characterize myocardial injury and its associations and sequelae in convalescent patients after hospitalization with COVID-19.

Enrollment took place during the Wuhan and Alpha waves of COVID-19: before vaccination and when dexamethasone and anticoagulant protocols were emerging. All participants underwent CMR at a median of 21 days after discharge.

Two prospective control groups also were recruited: 64 patients with COVID-19 and normal troponin levels (COVID+/troponin−) and 113 without COVID-19 or elevated troponin matched by age and cardiovascular comorbidities (COVID−/comorbidity+).

Overall, participants’ median age was 61 years and 69% were men. Common comorbidities included hypertension (47%), obesity (43%), and diabetes (25%).

The frequency of any heart abnormality – for example, left or right ventricular impairment, scar, or pericardial disease – was twice as great (61%) in COVID+/troponin+ cases, compared with controls (36% for COVID+/troponin− patients versus 31% for COVID−/comorbidity+ patients).

Specifically, more cases than controls had ventricular impairment (17.2% vs. 3.1% and 7.1%) or scar (42% vs. 7% and 23%).

The myocardial injury pattern differed between cases and controls, with cases more likely to have infarction (13% vs. 2% and 7%) or microinfarction (9% vs. 0% and 1%).

However, there was no between-group difference in nonischemic scar (13% vs. 5% and 14%).

The prevalence of probable recent myocarditis was 6.7% in cases, compared with 1.7% in controls without COVID-19 – “much lower” than in previous studies, Dr. Greenwood noted.

During follow-up, four COVID+/troponin+ patients (1.2%) died, and 34 (10%) experienced a subsequent major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; 10.2%), which was similar to controls (6.1%).

Myocardial scar, but not previous COVID-19 infection or troponin level, was an independent predictor of MACE (odds ratio, 2.25).

“These findings suggest that macroangiopathic and microangiopathic thrombosis may be the key pathologic process for myocardial injury in COVID-19 survivors,” the authors conclude.

Dr. Greenwood added, “We are currently analyzing the 6-month follow-up CMR scans, the quality-of-life questionnaires, and the 6-minute walk tests. These will give us great understanding of how the heart repairs after acute myocardial injury associated with COVID-19. It will also allow us to assess the impact on patient quality of life and functional capacity.”
 

‘Tour de force’

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and a professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said, “This is a tour de force collaboration – obtaining this many MRIs across multiple centers in the pandemic is quite remarkable. The study highlights the multiple different processes that lead to cardiac injury in COVID patients, complements autopsy studies and prior smaller MRI studies, [and] also provides the best data on the rate of myocarditis to date among the subset of COVID patients with cardiac injury.”

Overall, he said, the findings “do support closer follow-up for patients who had COVID and elevated troponins. We need to see follow-up MRI results in this cohort, as well as longer term outcomes. We also need studies on newer, more benign variants that are likely to have lower rates of cardiac injury and even fewer MRI abnormalities.”

Matthias Stuber, PhD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, both of Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland, noted in a related editorial, “We are also reminded that the clinical severity of COVID-19 is most often dictated by the presence of pre-existing comorbidity, with antecedent ischemic scar now added to the long list of bad actors. Although not the primary focus of the COVID-HEART study, the question of whether cardiac troponin levels should be checked routinely and universally during the index admission for COVID-19 remains unresolved,” they noted.

“In general, we are most effective as clinicians when we use tests to confirm or rule out the specific disease processes suspected by careful basic clinical assessment rather than in a shotgun manner among undifferentiated all-comers,” they conclude.

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high troponin levels are twice as likely to have cardiac abnormalities than those with normal troponin, with or without COVID-19, a multicenter U.K. study suggests.

The causes were diverse, myocarditis prevalence was lower than previously reported, and myocardial scar emerged as an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes at 12 months.

“We know that multiorgan involvement in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is common ... and may result in acute myocardial injury, detected by an increase in cardiac troponin concentrations,” John P. Greenwood, PhD, of the University of Leeds (England), told this news organization. “Elevated cardiac troponin is associated with a worse prognosis.”

“Multiple mechanisms of myocardial injury have been proposed and ... mitigation or prevention strategies likely depend on the underpinning mechanisms,” he said. “The sequelae of scar may predispose to late events.”

The study, published online  in Circulation, also identified a new pattern of microinfarction on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, highlighting the pro-thrombotic nature of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Greenwood said.
 

Injury patterns different

Three hundred and forty-two patients with COVID-19 and elevated troponin levels (COVID+/troponin+) across 25 centers were enrolled between June 2020 and March 2021 in COVID-HEART, deemed an “urgent public health study” in the United Kingdom. The aim was to characterize myocardial injury and its associations and sequelae in convalescent patients after hospitalization with COVID-19.

Enrollment took place during the Wuhan and Alpha waves of COVID-19: before vaccination and when dexamethasone and anticoagulant protocols were emerging. All participants underwent CMR at a median of 21 days after discharge.

Two prospective control groups also were recruited: 64 patients with COVID-19 and normal troponin levels (COVID+/troponin−) and 113 without COVID-19 or elevated troponin matched by age and cardiovascular comorbidities (COVID−/comorbidity+).

Overall, participants’ median age was 61 years and 69% were men. Common comorbidities included hypertension (47%), obesity (43%), and diabetes (25%).

The frequency of any heart abnormality – for example, left or right ventricular impairment, scar, or pericardial disease – was twice as great (61%) in COVID+/troponin+ cases, compared with controls (36% for COVID+/troponin− patients versus 31% for COVID−/comorbidity+ patients).

Specifically, more cases than controls had ventricular impairment (17.2% vs. 3.1% and 7.1%) or scar (42% vs. 7% and 23%).

The myocardial injury pattern differed between cases and controls, with cases more likely to have infarction (13% vs. 2% and 7%) or microinfarction (9% vs. 0% and 1%).

However, there was no between-group difference in nonischemic scar (13% vs. 5% and 14%).

The prevalence of probable recent myocarditis was 6.7% in cases, compared with 1.7% in controls without COVID-19 – “much lower” than in previous studies, Dr. Greenwood noted.

During follow-up, four COVID+/troponin+ patients (1.2%) died, and 34 (10%) experienced a subsequent major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; 10.2%), which was similar to controls (6.1%).

Myocardial scar, but not previous COVID-19 infection or troponin level, was an independent predictor of MACE (odds ratio, 2.25).

“These findings suggest that macroangiopathic and microangiopathic thrombosis may be the key pathologic process for myocardial injury in COVID-19 survivors,” the authors conclude.

Dr. Greenwood added, “We are currently analyzing the 6-month follow-up CMR scans, the quality-of-life questionnaires, and the 6-minute walk tests. These will give us great understanding of how the heart repairs after acute myocardial injury associated with COVID-19. It will also allow us to assess the impact on patient quality of life and functional capacity.”
 

‘Tour de force’

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and a professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said, “This is a tour de force collaboration – obtaining this many MRIs across multiple centers in the pandemic is quite remarkable. The study highlights the multiple different processes that lead to cardiac injury in COVID patients, complements autopsy studies and prior smaller MRI studies, [and] also provides the best data on the rate of myocarditis to date among the subset of COVID patients with cardiac injury.”

Overall, he said, the findings “do support closer follow-up for patients who had COVID and elevated troponins. We need to see follow-up MRI results in this cohort, as well as longer term outcomes. We also need studies on newer, more benign variants that are likely to have lower rates of cardiac injury and even fewer MRI abnormalities.”

Matthias Stuber, PhD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, both of Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland, noted in a related editorial, “We are also reminded that the clinical severity of COVID-19 is most often dictated by the presence of pre-existing comorbidity, with antecedent ischemic scar now added to the long list of bad actors. Although not the primary focus of the COVID-HEART study, the question of whether cardiac troponin levels should be checked routinely and universally during the index admission for COVID-19 remains unresolved,” they noted.

“In general, we are most effective as clinicians when we use tests to confirm or rule out the specific disease processes suspected by careful basic clinical assessment rather than in a shotgun manner among undifferentiated all-comers,” they conclude.

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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