Cardiology

Patients who received an injection of inclisiran (Leqvio), a small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, every 6 months for as long as 4 years safely maintained about a 45% reduction from baseline in their level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in an open-label extension study with 382 patients.

In addition to providing the longest reported treatment experience with inclisiran, which received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval a little over a year ago, the results also suggest with the most definitive evidence to date that inclisiran is less effective for lowering LDL-C, compared with a class of medications that reduce LDL-C by a related but distinct mechanism: antibodies that directly inhibit activity of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, a drug class that includes alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha). Inclisiran cuts PCSK9 activity by blocking this enzyme’s gene transcription in liver cells thereby interfering with PCSK9 production.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Results from this study, the ORION-3 trial, provide “the first prospective long-term evaluation of the durability and safety of an siRNA-based therapy to provide clinically meaningful reductions in LDL cholesterol with a convenient dosing schedule,” wrote Kausik K. Ray, MD, and coauthors in a report in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The findings “provide assurance that siRNA-based therapies are safe and have the potential to provide a convenient approach to managing” LDL-C, wrote Dr. Ray, a cardiologist and professor of public health at Imperial College London, and his associates.
 

Evolocumab surpasses inclisiran in crossover cohort

The new data from ORION-3 study included findings from 92 patients first treated with evolocumab injections every 2 weeks for a year, an intervention that lowered their LDL-C levels by an average of about 60%, compared with their pretreatment level. ORION-3’s study design then crossed these patients to treatment with injections of inclisiran twice a year during 3 further years of follow-up, during which their average LDL levels reset to a roughly 45% drop from baseline, a potentially clinically meaningful difference, commented Robert S. Rosenson, MD, a lipid management specialist who was not involved in the ORION-3 study.

“This is the first evidence that compared the two classes” within a single study, thereby avoiding a problematic cross-study comparison. “That’s why the data are important. They underscore that the monoclonal antibodies are more effective for lowering LDL-C,” compared with inclisiran, said Dr. Rosenson, professor and director of cardiometabolic disorders at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The findings “confirm in a trial that the PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies are indeed more potent,” he said in an interview.

But Dr. Rosenson acknowledged that, while this analysis used data on patients treated with evolocumab and then switched to inclisiran collected prospectively in a single study, it has the limitation of involving a comparison that was not prespecified. The primary goal of the evolocumab-to-inclisiran switch included in ORION-3 was to assess the ease, safety, and efficacy of a switch to inclisiran from treatment with a PCSK9 antibody and was not intended to compare the two drug classes. 

The roughly 15% absolute difference in LDL-C lowering between the two tested drug classes can have substantial clinical implications for patients who start treatment with highly elevated levels of LDL-C, more than 190 mg/dL, because they have heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, are unable to take a statin because of intolerance, or both. The difference in LDL-C reduction with an antibody or with inclisiran could mean the difference between whether or not a patient like this achieves their LDL-C goal level, Dr. Rosenson explained.

Inclisiran’s upside

On the other hand, inclisiran has a couple of important advantages. First, its mechanism of action means that effective treatment involves one injection every 6 months following a patient’s first two injections at onset and after 90 days, with all injections administered in a clinician’s office. In contrast, both of the monoclonal antibodies require injections every other week, a schedule that depends on patient self-injections using prefilled syringes obtained from a pharmacy.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Twice-a-year dosing by a clinician can be a major attraction because it helps ensure treatment compliance, aids patients with physical or psychological limitations to self-injection, reduces the pill burden for patients who require multiple medications, and facilitates frequent travelers who would otherwise need to carry syringes with them on trips, Dr. Rosenson noted.

The second big advantage of office-based administration of inclisiran for U.S. Medicare patients is that the treatment is billed under a patient’s part B coverage, usually resulting in easier coverage and a significantly lower patient co-pay, compared with Medicare’s coverage for a pharmacy-dispensed agent, which is covered under Medicare part D. “Part B coverage is financially more doable” for most Medicare patients, said Dr. Rosenson.

The administration schedule for inclisiran as well as its superior Medicare coverage makes the agent “transformative” for LDL-C lowering in patients for whom treatment delivery, frequency, and payment are issues, he said.
 

Inclisiran uptake modest after FDA approval

Despite these pluses, uptake of inclisiran has been modest since it received U.S. marketing approval in December 2021. In its most recent quarterly financial filing, in October 2022, Novartis reported total worldwide income from inclisiran (Leqvio) of $70 million during the first 9 months of 2022, although a Novartis spokesperson noted that the company has seen “positive trends in uptake” over the course of 2022. Inclisiran is labeled as an “adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who require additional lowering” of LDL-C.

During 2022, inclisiran uptake lagged because of the usual problems that slow the introduction of new drugs and new drug classes, especially ones that require dosing by a clinician. Months were spent waiting for billing codes to roll out, for clinical staffs to incorporate inclisiran injections into their routines, and for commercial insurers to get up to speed on their coverage, Dr. Rosenson said.

Also, a key step for widespread uptake of a new medication for improving cardiovascular disease outcomes – results from phase 3 studies that document safety and efficacy for these outcomes – remains several years off. The ORION-4 trial and the VICTORION-2P trial, each assessing the impact of inclisiran on cardiovascular disease events in roughly 15,000 people, will need about another 3-4 years before their results become available.

Professional medical societies that issue cardiovascular-disease management guidelines “prefer agents with proven benefits in phase 3 trials,” Dr. Rosenson noted.

Hence, the most recent update to U.S. LDL-C–management guidelines, released in the second half of 2022 by the American College of Cardiology as an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, said this about the current role for inclisiran: “At the present time, a PCSK9 monoclonal antibody is preferred as the initial PCSK9 inhibitor of choice in view of its demonstrated safety, efficacy, and benefits for cardiovascular outcomes in the FOURIER [for evolocumab] and ODYSSEY Outcomes [for alirocumab] trials. The ORION-4 and VICTORION-2P cardiovascular outcomes trials with inclisiran are currently underway, and their completion is anticipated in 2026 and 2027, respectively. In view of the twice-yearly dosing regimen, inclisiran may be considered in patients with demonstrated poor adherence to PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies. Patients with adverse effects from both PSCK9 monoclonal antibodies or those who may be unable to self-inject may also be considered for therapy with inclisiran.”
 

ORION-3 extended the ORION-1 trial

The ORION-1 study was a phase 2 placebo-controlled, dose-ranging safety and efficacy assessment of inclisiran that gave patients two injections of the drug, at day zero and 90 days, and followed them for an additional 120 days (210 days total follow-up duration), and in some cases for as long as 360 days total. Of the 370 patients who received inclisiran in ORION-1, 290 agreed to continue inclisiran in the open-label extension, ORION-3. ORION-1 also included 127 patients randomized to initial placebo treatment, and 92 of these patients agreed to continue in ORION-3 and became the patients initially treated with evolocumab injections every other week for 1 year followed by initiation of an inclisiran regimen.

The primary outcome of ORION-3 was the change in LDL-C from baseline (the ORION-1 baseline) after 210 days of receiving inclisiran in ORION-3 (or a total of roughly 570 days after the start of ORION-1). The primary endpoint showed that, at day 210 of ORION-3 the average reduction in LDL-C from the original baseline level was 47.5%.

But a “more important” outcome, said Dr. Ray when he first reported the ORION-3 results during the American Heart Association scientific sessions in Chicago in November 2022, was that, overall, during 4 years on inclisiran this cohort showed an average cut in LDL-C from baseline of about 45% that consistently remained at this level throughout the 4 years of treatment.

“This provides us with an idea of what happens with chronic inclisiran dosing,” Dr. Ray explained. “There was no loss of biological efficacy, and we achieved these clinically meaningful, time-averaged reductions with a good safety profile. The great thing is that when patients get their injections [every 6 months] you see a consistent LDL-C reduction. A twice-annual injection is an opportunity to redesign” the way patients receive preventive cardiology care and treatment to lower LDL-C, Dr Ray said.

ORION-1 was sponsored by The Medicines Company. ORION-3 was sponsored by Novartis (which acquired The Medicines Company). Dr. Ray has received consulting fees, personal fees, and research grants from Novartis, as well as consulting fees and research grants from Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha), and research grants from Regeneron, the company that markets alirocumab (Praluent). He has also received consulting fee, personal fees, and research grants from numerous other companies. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen, Novartis, and Regeneron, and he has received speaking fees from Amgen and Regeneron, and has ties to several other pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article was updated on 1/26/2023.

Patients who received an injection of inclisiran (Leqvio), a small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, every 6 months for as long as 4 years safely maintained about a 45% reduction from baseline in their level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in an open-label extension study with 382 patients.

In addition to providing the longest reported treatment experience with inclisiran, which received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval a little over a year ago, the results also suggest with the most definitive evidence to date that inclisiran is less effective for lowering LDL-C, compared with a class of medications that reduce LDL-C by a related but distinct mechanism: antibodies that directly inhibit activity of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, a drug class that includes alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha). Inclisiran cuts PCSK9 activity by blocking this enzyme’s gene transcription in liver cells thereby interfering with PCSK9 production.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Results from this study, the ORION-3 trial, provide “the first prospective long-term evaluation of the durability and safety of an siRNA-based therapy to provide clinically meaningful reductions in LDL cholesterol with a convenient dosing schedule,” wrote Kausik K. Ray, MD, and coauthors in a report in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The findings “provide assurance that siRNA-based therapies are safe and have the potential to provide a convenient approach to managing” LDL-C, wrote Dr. Ray, a cardiologist and professor of public health at Imperial College London, and his associates.
 

Evolocumab surpasses inclisiran in crossover cohort

The new data from ORION-3 study included findings from 92 patients first treated with evolocumab injections every 2 weeks for a year, an intervention that lowered their LDL-C levels by an average of about 60%, compared with their pretreatment level. ORION-3’s study design then crossed these patients to treatment with injections of inclisiran twice a year during 3 further years of follow-up, during which their average LDL levels reset to a roughly 45% drop from baseline, a potentially clinically meaningful difference, commented Robert S. Rosenson, MD, a lipid management specialist who was not involved in the ORION-3 study.

“This is the first evidence that compared the two classes” within a single study, thereby avoiding a problematic cross-study comparison. “That’s why the data are important. They underscore that the monoclonal antibodies are more effective for lowering LDL-C,” compared with inclisiran, said Dr. Rosenson, professor and director of cardiometabolic disorders at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The findings “confirm in a trial that the PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies are indeed more potent,” he said in an interview.

But Dr. Rosenson acknowledged that, while this analysis used data on patients treated with evolocumab and then switched to inclisiran collected prospectively in a single study, it has the limitation of involving a comparison that was not prespecified. The primary goal of the evolocumab-to-inclisiran switch included in ORION-3 was to assess the ease, safety, and efficacy of a switch to inclisiran from treatment with a PCSK9 antibody and was not intended to compare the two drug classes. 

The roughly 15% absolute difference in LDL-C lowering between the two tested drug classes can have substantial clinical implications for patients who start treatment with highly elevated levels of LDL-C, more than 190 mg/dL, because they have heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, are unable to take a statin because of intolerance, or both. The difference in LDL-C reduction with an antibody or with inclisiran could mean the difference between whether or not a patient like this achieves their LDL-C goal level, Dr. Rosenson explained.

Inclisiran’s upside

On the other hand, inclisiran has a couple of important advantages. First, its mechanism of action means that effective treatment involves one injection every 6 months following a patient’s first two injections at onset and after 90 days, with all injections administered in a clinician’s office. In contrast, both of the monoclonal antibodies require injections every other week, a schedule that depends on patient self-injections using prefilled syringes obtained from a pharmacy.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Twice-a-year dosing by a clinician can be a major attraction because it helps ensure treatment compliance, aids patients with physical or psychological limitations to self-injection, reduces the pill burden for patients who require multiple medications, and facilitates frequent travelers who would otherwise need to carry syringes with them on trips, Dr. Rosenson noted.

The second big advantage of office-based administration of inclisiran for U.S. Medicare patients is that the treatment is billed under a patient’s part B coverage, usually resulting in easier coverage and a significantly lower patient co-pay, compared with Medicare’s coverage for a pharmacy-dispensed agent, which is covered under Medicare part D. “Part B coverage is financially more doable” for most Medicare patients, said Dr. Rosenson.

The administration schedule for inclisiran as well as its superior Medicare coverage makes the agent “transformative” for LDL-C lowering in patients for whom treatment delivery, frequency, and payment are issues, he said.
 

Inclisiran uptake modest after FDA approval

Despite these pluses, uptake of inclisiran has been modest since it received U.S. marketing approval in December 2021. In its most recent quarterly financial filing, in October 2022, Novartis reported total worldwide income from inclisiran (Leqvio) of $70 million during the first 9 months of 2022, although a Novartis spokesperson noted that the company has seen “positive trends in uptake” over the course of 2022. Inclisiran is labeled as an “adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who require additional lowering” of LDL-C.

During 2022, inclisiran uptake lagged because of the usual problems that slow the introduction of new drugs and new drug classes, especially ones that require dosing by a clinician. Months were spent waiting for billing codes to roll out, for clinical staffs to incorporate inclisiran injections into their routines, and for commercial insurers to get up to speed on their coverage, Dr. Rosenson said.

Also, a key step for widespread uptake of a new medication for improving cardiovascular disease outcomes – results from phase 3 studies that document safety and efficacy for these outcomes – remains several years off. The ORION-4 trial and the VICTORION-2P trial, each assessing the impact of inclisiran on cardiovascular disease events in roughly 15,000 people, will need about another 3-4 years before their results become available.

Professional medical societies that issue cardiovascular-disease management guidelines “prefer agents with proven benefits in phase 3 trials,” Dr. Rosenson noted.

Hence, the most recent update to U.S. LDL-C–management guidelines, released in the second half of 2022 by the American College of Cardiology as an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, said this about the current role for inclisiran: “At the present time, a PCSK9 monoclonal antibody is preferred as the initial PCSK9 inhibitor of choice in view of its demonstrated safety, efficacy, and benefits for cardiovascular outcomes in the FOURIER [for evolocumab] and ODYSSEY Outcomes [for alirocumab] trials. The ORION-4 and VICTORION-2P cardiovascular outcomes trials with inclisiran are currently underway, and their completion is anticipated in 2026 and 2027, respectively. In view of the twice-yearly dosing regimen, inclisiran may be considered in patients with demonstrated poor adherence to PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies. Patients with adverse effects from both PSCK9 monoclonal antibodies or those who may be unable to self-inject may also be considered for therapy with inclisiran.”
 

ORION-3 extended the ORION-1 trial

The ORION-1 study was a phase 2 placebo-controlled, dose-ranging safety and efficacy assessment of inclisiran that gave patients two injections of the drug, at day zero and 90 days, and followed them for an additional 120 days (210 days total follow-up duration), and in some cases for as long as 360 days total. Of the 370 patients who received inclisiran in ORION-1, 290 agreed to continue inclisiran in the open-label extension, ORION-3. ORION-1 also included 127 patients randomized to initial placebo treatment, and 92 of these patients agreed to continue in ORION-3 and became the patients initially treated with evolocumab injections every other week for 1 year followed by initiation of an inclisiran regimen.

The primary outcome of ORION-3 was the change in LDL-C from baseline (the ORION-1 baseline) after 210 days of receiving inclisiran in ORION-3 (or a total of roughly 570 days after the start of ORION-1). The primary endpoint showed that, at day 210 of ORION-3 the average reduction in LDL-C from the original baseline level was 47.5%.

But a “more important” outcome, said Dr. Ray when he first reported the ORION-3 results during the American Heart Association scientific sessions in Chicago in November 2022, was that, overall, during 4 years on inclisiran this cohort showed an average cut in LDL-C from baseline of about 45% that consistently remained at this level throughout the 4 years of treatment.

“This provides us with an idea of what happens with chronic inclisiran dosing,” Dr. Ray explained. “There was no loss of biological efficacy, and we achieved these clinically meaningful, time-averaged reductions with a good safety profile. The great thing is that when patients get their injections [every 6 months] you see a consistent LDL-C reduction. A twice-annual injection is an opportunity to redesign” the way patients receive preventive cardiology care and treatment to lower LDL-C, Dr Ray said.

ORION-1 was sponsored by The Medicines Company. ORION-3 was sponsored by Novartis (which acquired The Medicines Company). Dr. Ray has received consulting fees, personal fees, and research grants from Novartis, as well as consulting fees and research grants from Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha), and research grants from Regeneron, the company that markets alirocumab (Praluent). He has also received consulting fee, personal fees, and research grants from numerous other companies. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen, Novartis, and Regeneron, and he has received speaking fees from Amgen and Regeneron, and has ties to several other pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article was updated on 1/26/2023.

Patients who received an injection of inclisiran (Leqvio), a small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, every 6 months for as long as 4 years safely maintained about a 45% reduction from baseline in their level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in an open-label extension study with 382 patients.

In addition to providing the longest reported treatment experience with inclisiran, which received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval a little over a year ago, the results also suggest with the most definitive evidence to date that inclisiran is less effective for lowering LDL-C, compared with a class of medications that reduce LDL-C by a related but distinct mechanism: antibodies that directly inhibit activity of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, a drug class that includes alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha). Inclisiran cuts PCSK9 activity by blocking this enzyme’s gene transcription in liver cells thereby interfering with PCSK9 production.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Results from this study, the ORION-3 trial, provide “the first prospective long-term evaluation of the durability and safety of an siRNA-based therapy to provide clinically meaningful reductions in LDL cholesterol with a convenient dosing schedule,” wrote Kausik K. Ray, MD, and coauthors in a report in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The findings “provide assurance that siRNA-based therapies are safe and have the potential to provide a convenient approach to managing” LDL-C, wrote Dr. Ray, a cardiologist and professor of public health at Imperial College London, and his associates.
 

Evolocumab surpasses inclisiran in crossover cohort

The new data from ORION-3 study included findings from 92 patients first treated with evolocumab injections every 2 weeks for a year, an intervention that lowered their LDL-C levels by an average of about 60%, compared with their pretreatment level. ORION-3’s study design then crossed these patients to treatment with injections of inclisiran twice a year during 3 further years of follow-up, during which their average LDL levels reset to a roughly 45% drop from baseline, a potentially clinically meaningful difference, commented Robert S. Rosenson, MD, a lipid management specialist who was not involved in the ORION-3 study.

“This is the first evidence that compared the two classes” within a single study, thereby avoiding a problematic cross-study comparison. “That’s why the data are important. They underscore that the monoclonal antibodies are more effective for lowering LDL-C,” compared with inclisiran, said Dr. Rosenson, professor and director of cardiometabolic disorders at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The findings “confirm in a trial that the PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies are indeed more potent,” he said in an interview.

But Dr. Rosenson acknowledged that, while this analysis used data on patients treated with evolocumab and then switched to inclisiran collected prospectively in a single study, it has the limitation of involving a comparison that was not prespecified. The primary goal of the evolocumab-to-inclisiran switch included in ORION-3 was to assess the ease, safety, and efficacy of a switch to inclisiran from treatment with a PCSK9 antibody and was not intended to compare the two drug classes. 

The roughly 15% absolute difference in LDL-C lowering between the two tested drug classes can have substantial clinical implications for patients who start treatment with highly elevated levels of LDL-C, more than 190 mg/dL, because they have heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, are unable to take a statin because of intolerance, or both. The difference in LDL-C reduction with an antibody or with inclisiran could mean the difference between whether or not a patient like this achieves their LDL-C goal level, Dr. Rosenson explained.

Inclisiran’s upside

On the other hand, inclisiran has a couple of important advantages. First, its mechanism of action means that effective treatment involves one injection every 6 months following a patient’s first two injections at onset and after 90 days, with all injections administered in a clinician’s office. In contrast, both of the monoclonal antibodies require injections every other week, a schedule that depends on patient self-injections using prefilled syringes obtained from a pharmacy.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Twice-a-year dosing by a clinician can be a major attraction because it helps ensure treatment compliance, aids patients with physical or psychological limitations to self-injection, reduces the pill burden for patients who require multiple medications, and facilitates frequent travelers who would otherwise need to carry syringes with them on trips, Dr. Rosenson noted.

The second big advantage of office-based administration of inclisiran for U.S. Medicare patients is that the treatment is billed under a patient’s part B coverage, usually resulting in easier coverage and a significantly lower patient co-pay, compared with Medicare’s coverage for a pharmacy-dispensed agent, which is covered under Medicare part D. “Part B coverage is financially more doable” for most Medicare patients, said Dr. Rosenson.

The administration schedule for inclisiran as well as its superior Medicare coverage makes the agent “transformative” for LDL-C lowering in patients for whom treatment delivery, frequency, and payment are issues, he said.
 

Inclisiran uptake modest after FDA approval

Despite these pluses, uptake of inclisiran has been modest since it received U.S. marketing approval in December 2021. In its most recent quarterly financial filing, in October 2022, Novartis reported total worldwide income from inclisiran (Leqvio) of $70 million during the first 9 months of 2022, although a Novartis spokesperson noted that the company has seen “positive trends in uptake” over the course of 2022. Inclisiran is labeled as an “adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who require additional lowering” of LDL-C.

During 2022, inclisiran uptake lagged because of the usual problems that slow the introduction of new drugs and new drug classes, especially ones that require dosing by a clinician. Months were spent waiting for billing codes to roll out, for clinical staffs to incorporate inclisiran injections into their routines, and for commercial insurers to get up to speed on their coverage, Dr. Rosenson said.

Also, a key step for widespread uptake of a new medication for improving cardiovascular disease outcomes – results from phase 3 studies that document safety and efficacy for these outcomes – remains several years off. The ORION-4 trial and the VICTORION-2P trial, each assessing the impact of inclisiran on cardiovascular disease events in roughly 15,000 people, will need about another 3-4 years before their results become available.

Professional medical societies that issue cardiovascular-disease management guidelines “prefer agents with proven benefits in phase 3 trials,” Dr. Rosenson noted.

Hence, the most recent update to U.S. LDL-C–management guidelines, released in the second half of 2022 by the American College of Cardiology as an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, said this about the current role for inclisiran: “At the present time, a PCSK9 monoclonal antibody is preferred as the initial PCSK9 inhibitor of choice in view of its demonstrated safety, efficacy, and benefits for cardiovascular outcomes in the FOURIER [for evolocumab] and ODYSSEY Outcomes [for alirocumab] trials. The ORION-4 and VICTORION-2P cardiovascular outcomes trials with inclisiran are currently underway, and their completion is anticipated in 2026 and 2027, respectively. In view of the twice-yearly dosing regimen, inclisiran may be considered in patients with demonstrated poor adherence to PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies. Patients with adverse effects from both PSCK9 monoclonal antibodies or those who may be unable to self-inject may also be considered for therapy with inclisiran.”
 

ORION-3 extended the ORION-1 trial

The ORION-1 study was a phase 2 placebo-controlled, dose-ranging safety and efficacy assessment of inclisiran that gave patients two injections of the drug, at day zero and 90 days, and followed them for an additional 120 days (210 days total follow-up duration), and in some cases for as long as 360 days total. Of the 370 patients who received inclisiran in ORION-1, 290 agreed to continue inclisiran in the open-label extension, ORION-3. ORION-1 also included 127 patients randomized to initial placebo treatment, and 92 of these patients agreed to continue in ORION-3 and became the patients initially treated with evolocumab injections every other week for 1 year followed by initiation of an inclisiran regimen.

The primary outcome of ORION-3 was the change in LDL-C from baseline (the ORION-1 baseline) after 210 days of receiving inclisiran in ORION-3 (or a total of roughly 570 days after the start of ORION-1). The primary endpoint showed that, at day 210 of ORION-3 the average reduction in LDL-C from the original baseline level was 47.5%.

But a “more important” outcome, said Dr. Ray when he first reported the ORION-3 results during the American Heart Association scientific sessions in Chicago in November 2022, was that, overall, during 4 years on inclisiran this cohort showed an average cut in LDL-C from baseline of about 45% that consistently remained at this level throughout the 4 years of treatment.

“This provides us with an idea of what happens with chronic inclisiran dosing,” Dr. Ray explained. “There was no loss of biological efficacy, and we achieved these clinically meaningful, time-averaged reductions with a good safety profile. The great thing is that when patients get their injections [every 6 months] you see a consistent LDL-C reduction. A twice-annual injection is an opportunity to redesign” the way patients receive preventive cardiology care and treatment to lower LDL-C, Dr Ray said.

ORION-1 was sponsored by The Medicines Company. ORION-3 was sponsored by Novartis (which acquired The Medicines Company). Dr. Ray has received consulting fees, personal fees, and research grants from Novartis, as well as consulting fees and research grants from Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha), and research grants from Regeneron, the company that markets alirocumab (Praluent). He has also received consulting fee, personal fees, and research grants from numerous other companies. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen, Novartis, and Regeneron, and he has received speaking fees from Amgen and Regeneron, and has ties to several other pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article was updated on 1/26/2023.

A vaccine database found a possible link between the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and ischemic strokes in people over 65 who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.

The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.

The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.

“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.

Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.

“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.

No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine. 

CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data. 

The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”

Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.

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

A vaccine database found a possible link between the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and ischemic strokes in people over 65 who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.

The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.

The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.

“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.

Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.

“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.

No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine. 

CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data. 

The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”

Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.

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

A vaccine database found a possible link between the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and ischemic strokes in people over 65 who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.

The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.

The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.

“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.

Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.

“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.

No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine. 

CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data. 

The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”

Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.

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

Vaccinations have substantially reduced morbidity and mortality from many infectious diseases. Despite the clear value of vaccinations in public health, efforts to better understand adverse events (AEs) following immunization are important to sustain public trust and vaccine confidence. Noninfectious inflammation of the heart may manifest as myocarditis or pericarditis, or occasionally, with shared signs and symptoms of each, as myopericarditis. This is a rare AE following some immunizations. Vaccine-associated myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis (VAMP) has been most clearly associated with smallpox vaccines and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^1-6 Although extremely rare, VAMP also has been associated with other vaccines.^7,8 Limited information exists to guide shared clinical decision making on COVID-19 vaccination in persons with a history of VAMP. It is unknown whether individuals with a history of VAMP are at higher risk for developing a recurrence or experiencing a more severe outcome following COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

As part of the collaborative public health mission with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for enhanced vaccine AE surveillance, the Defense Health Agency Immunization Healthcare Division (IHD) maintains a clinical database of service members and beneficiaries referred for suspected AEs following immunizations. A review of all AEs following immunization cases in this database from January 1, 2003, through February 28, 2022, identified individuals meeting the following criteria: (a) VAMP prior to receipt of COVID-19 vaccine; (b) receipt of COVID-19 vaccine in 2021; and (c) medical documentation in available electronic health records sufficient to describe health status at least 30 days following COVID-19 vaccination.⁹ If medical entries suggested cardiac symptoms following a COVID-19 vaccine, additional information was sought to verify VAMP based on current published criteria.^10,11 Both the initial VAMP cases and the suspected COVID-19 VAMP cases were adjudicated by a team of vaccine experts and specialists in immunology, cardiology, and preventive medicine.

This retrospective review was approved and conducted in accordance with the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Institutional Review Board protocol #20664. All individuals with recurrent VAMP consented to share their health records and clinical details.

Results

Among 9260 cases in the IHD database, 431 met the case definition for VAMP.

Among the 179 patients included in this analysis, 171 (96%) were male. Their median age was 39 years at the time of COVID-19 vaccination.

Within 1 month of receipt of any COVID-19 vaccine, 11 individuals had documented symptoms suggesting cardiac involvement, specifically, chest pain, palpitations, or dyspnea. After cardiac evaluation, 4 patients met the criteria for VAMP after COVID-19 vaccination.^10,11 Seven patients either did not meet the criteria for VAMP or had alternative causes for their symptoms.

Two men aged 49 and 50 years with a history of vaccine-associated myocarditis following smallpox vaccination (Dryvax and ACAM2000) developed myocarditis 3 days after their second dose of the Moderna vaccine. One of these patients received a Pfizer-BioNTech booster 10 months later with no recurrence of symptoms. A 55-year-old man with a history of vaccine-associated myocarditis following Dryvax vaccination developed myocarditis 2 days after his Pfizer-BioNTech booster. None of the patients who developed post-COVID-19 VAMP reported residual symptoms from their initial VAMP episode, which occurred 12 to 18 years earlier. All were hospitalized briefly for observation and had complete symptom resolution within 6 weeks.

A 25-year-old man developed pericarditis 4 days after his second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination. His previous ACAM2000 vaccine-associated myocarditis occurred 3 years earlier, with no residual symptoms. Of note, he had a mild COVID-19 infection 78 days before the onset of his pericarditis. After the onset of his COVID-19 vaccine-associated pericarditis, he continued to experience transient bouts of chest pressure and exertional dyspnea that resolved within 7 months of onset.

The median interval between COVID-19 vaccine doses in those who developed post-COVID-19 VAMP was within the recommended mRNA vaccine dosing intervals of 3 to 4 weeks and was consistent with the median mRNA vaccine dosing intervals among the entire cohort.

Due to the small cohort size and other limitations of this study, the suggested rate of cardiac injury in this review (4 cases in 179 persons, or 2.2%) is an imprecise estimate of risk in a small population (95% CI, 0.1%-4.4%). While this rate may seem higher than expected within the general population after COVID-19 vaccination, it is lower than the estimated lifetime risk of recurrent myocarditis from any cause.^6,12

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first report describing cardiac outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination among a cohort of individuals with prior history of VAMP. Four cases of COVID-19 VAMP were identified among 179 patients with previous VAMP. All cases had experienced VAMP after the smallpox vaccine several years earlier, with complete resolution of symptoms. Three cases presented with recurrent VAMP after their second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and one after an mRNA booster dose. All fully recovered over the course of several months.

Myocarditis is a heterogeneous inflammatory injury with diverse, sometimes idiopathic, etiologies.¹³ In contrast to infection-related cardiac injury, prior reports of vaccine-associated myocarditis have suggested a hypersensitivity reaction characterized by patchy eosinophilic infiltrates, a benign clinical course, and good prognosis.^2,3

There are several common features between VAMP after smallpox and COVID-19 vaccination. Cases occur predominantly in young men. The onset of symptoms after smallpox vaccine (mean, 10 days) and after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (mean, 3 days) appears to correspond to the timing of peak postvaccination pro-inflammatory cytokine elevation.¹⁴ While all VAMP cases are serious events, the majority of patients appear to have a relatively benign clinical course with rapid and full recovery.¹³

Patients who have experienced an inflammatory cardiac injury may be at higher risk for recurrence, but quantifying risk of this rare phenomenon is challenging. Cases of VAMP after the COVID-19 vaccine have occasionally been reported in patients with previous cardiac injury unrelated to vaccination.^15-17 The cases presented here represent the first report of recurrent VAMP following prior non-COVID-19 vaccinations.

Most patients with prior VAMP in this cohort did not experience cardiac-suggestive symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination. Among 11 patients who developed symptoms, 3 had confirmed myocarditis and 1 had confirmed pericarditis. The clinical course for these patients with recurrent VAMP was observed to be no different in severity or duration from those who experience new-onset VAMP.⁴ All other patients not meeting criteria for VAMP or having alternative explanations for their symptoms also had a benign clinical course. Nonetheless, of the study cohort of 179, recurrent VAMP was diagnosed in 4 of the 11 who developed cardiac-suggestive symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination. The importance of cardiac evaluation should be emphasized for any patient presenting with chest pain, dyspnea, or other cardiac-suggestive symptoms following vaccination.

Strengths and Limitations

The strength of this review of VAMP recurrence associated with COVID-19 vaccination derives from our large and unique longitudinal database of VAMP among current and prior service members. Additionally, the IHD’s ongoing enhanced vaccine AEs surveillance provides the opportunity to contact patients and review their electronic health records over an extended interval of time.

When interpreting this report’s implications, limitations inherent to any retrospective case review should be considered. The cohort of cases of prior VAMP included primarily healthy, fit, young service members; this population is not representative of the general population. The cohort included prior VAMP cases that generally occurred after smallpox vaccination. Experiences after smallpox vaccine may not apply to cardiac injury from other vaccines or etiologies. By the nature of this review, the population studied at the time of COVID-19 vaccination was somewhat older than those most likely to develop an initial bout of VAMP.² This review was limited by information available in the electronic health records of a small number of patients. Subclinical cases of VAMP and cases without adequate clinical evaluation also could not be included.

Conclusions

Noninfectious inflammation of the heart (myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis) is a rare AE following certain vaccines, especially live replicating smallpox vaccine and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In this observational analysis, the majority of patients with previous VAMP successfully received a COVID-19 vaccine without recurrence. The 4 patients who were identified with recurrent VAMP following COVID-19 vaccination all recovered with supportive care. While the CDC endorses that individuals with a history of infectious myocarditis may receive COVID-19 vaccine after symptoms have resolved, there is currently insufficient safety data regarding COVID-19 vaccination of those with prior non-COVID-19 VAMP or following subsequent COVID-19 vaccination in those with prior VAMP related to COVID-19.¹⁰ For these individuals, COVID-19 vaccination is a precaution.¹⁰ Although insufficient to determine a precise level of risk, this report does provide data on which to base the CDC-recommended shared decision-making counseling of these patients. More research is needed to better define factors that increase risk for, or protection from, immune-mediated AEs following immunization, including VAMP. While benefits of vaccination have clearly outweighed risks during the COVID-19 pandemic, such research may optimize future vaccine recommendations.¹⁸

Vaccinations have substantially reduced morbidity and mortality from many infectious diseases. Despite the clear value of vaccinations in public health, efforts to better understand adverse events (AEs) following immunization are important to sustain public trust and vaccine confidence. Noninfectious inflammation of the heart may manifest as myocarditis or pericarditis, or occasionally, with shared signs and symptoms of each, as myopericarditis. This is a rare AE following some immunizations. Vaccine-associated myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis (VAMP) has been most clearly associated with smallpox vaccines and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^1-6 Although extremely rare, VAMP also has been associated with other vaccines.^7,8 Limited information exists to guide shared clinical decision making on COVID-19 vaccination in persons with a history of VAMP. It is unknown whether individuals with a history of VAMP are at higher risk for developing a recurrence or experiencing a more severe outcome following COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

As part of the collaborative public health mission with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for enhanced vaccine AE surveillance, the Defense Health Agency Immunization Healthcare Division (IHD) maintains a clinical database of service members and beneficiaries referred for suspected AEs following immunizations. A review of all AEs following immunization cases in this database from January 1, 2003, through February 28, 2022, identified individuals meeting the following criteria: (a) VAMP prior to receipt of COVID-19 vaccine; (b) receipt of COVID-19 vaccine in 2021; and (c) medical documentation in available electronic health records sufficient to describe health status at least 30 days following COVID-19 vaccination.⁹ If medical entries suggested cardiac symptoms following a COVID-19 vaccine, additional information was sought to verify VAMP based on current published criteria.^10,11 Both the initial VAMP cases and the suspected COVID-19 VAMP cases were adjudicated by a team of vaccine experts and specialists in immunology, cardiology, and preventive medicine.

This retrospective review was approved and conducted in accordance with the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Institutional Review Board protocol #20664. All individuals with recurrent VAMP consented to share their health records and clinical details.

Results

Among 9260 cases in the IHD database, 431 met the case definition for VAMP.

Among the 179 patients included in this analysis, 171 (96%) were male. Their median age was 39 years at the time of COVID-19 vaccination.

Within 1 month of receipt of any COVID-19 vaccine, 11 individuals had documented symptoms suggesting cardiac involvement, specifically, chest pain, palpitations, or dyspnea. After cardiac evaluation, 4 patients met the criteria for VAMP after COVID-19 vaccination.^10,11 Seven patients either did not meet the criteria for VAMP or had alternative causes for their symptoms.

Two men aged 49 and 50 years with a history of vaccine-associated myocarditis following smallpox vaccination (Dryvax and ACAM2000) developed myocarditis 3 days after their second dose of the Moderna vaccine. One of these patients received a Pfizer-BioNTech booster 10 months later with no recurrence of symptoms. A 55-year-old man with a history of vaccine-associated myocarditis following Dryvax vaccination developed myocarditis 2 days after his Pfizer-BioNTech booster. None of the patients who developed post-COVID-19 VAMP reported residual symptoms from their initial VAMP episode, which occurred 12 to 18 years earlier. All were hospitalized briefly for observation and had complete symptom resolution within 6 weeks.

A 25-year-old man developed pericarditis 4 days after his second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination. His previous ACAM2000 vaccine-associated myocarditis occurred 3 years earlier, with no residual symptoms. Of note, he had a mild COVID-19 infection 78 days before the onset of his pericarditis. After the onset of his COVID-19 vaccine-associated pericarditis, he continued to experience transient bouts of chest pressure and exertional dyspnea that resolved within 7 months of onset.

The median interval between COVID-19 vaccine doses in those who developed post-COVID-19 VAMP was within the recommended mRNA vaccine dosing intervals of 3 to 4 weeks and was consistent with the median mRNA vaccine dosing intervals among the entire cohort.

Due to the small cohort size and other limitations of this study, the suggested rate of cardiac injury in this review (4 cases in 179 persons, or 2.2%) is an imprecise estimate of risk in a small population (95% CI, 0.1%-4.4%). While this rate may seem higher than expected within the general population after COVID-19 vaccination, it is lower than the estimated lifetime risk of recurrent myocarditis from any cause.^6,12

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first report describing cardiac outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination among a cohort of individuals with prior history of VAMP. Four cases of COVID-19 VAMP were identified among 179 patients with previous VAMP. All cases had experienced VAMP after the smallpox vaccine several years earlier, with complete resolution of symptoms. Three cases presented with recurrent VAMP after their second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and one after an mRNA booster dose. All fully recovered over the course of several months.

Myocarditis is a heterogeneous inflammatory injury with diverse, sometimes idiopathic, etiologies.¹³ In contrast to infection-related cardiac injury, prior reports of vaccine-associated myocarditis have suggested a hypersensitivity reaction characterized by patchy eosinophilic infiltrates, a benign clinical course, and good prognosis.^2,3

There are several common features between VAMP after smallpox and COVID-19 vaccination. Cases occur predominantly in young men. The onset of symptoms after smallpox vaccine (mean, 10 days) and after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (mean, 3 days) appears to correspond to the timing of peak postvaccination pro-inflammatory cytokine elevation.¹⁴ While all VAMP cases are serious events, the majority of patients appear to have a relatively benign clinical course with rapid and full recovery.¹³

Patients who have experienced an inflammatory cardiac injury may be at higher risk for recurrence, but quantifying risk of this rare phenomenon is challenging. Cases of VAMP after the COVID-19 vaccine have occasionally been reported in patients with previous cardiac injury unrelated to vaccination.^15-17 The cases presented here represent the first report of recurrent VAMP following prior non-COVID-19 vaccinations.

Most patients with prior VAMP in this cohort did not experience cardiac-suggestive symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination. Among 11 patients who developed symptoms, 3 had confirmed myocarditis and 1 had confirmed pericarditis. The clinical course for these patients with recurrent VAMP was observed to be no different in severity or duration from those who experience new-onset VAMP.⁴ All other patients not meeting criteria for VAMP or having alternative explanations for their symptoms also had a benign clinical course. Nonetheless, of the study cohort of 179, recurrent VAMP was diagnosed in 4 of the 11 who developed cardiac-suggestive symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination. The importance of cardiac evaluation should be emphasized for any patient presenting with chest pain, dyspnea, or other cardiac-suggestive symptoms following vaccination.

Strengths and Limitations

The strength of this review of VAMP recurrence associated with COVID-19 vaccination derives from our large and unique longitudinal database of VAMP among current and prior service members. Additionally, the IHD’s ongoing enhanced vaccine AEs surveillance provides the opportunity to contact patients and review their electronic health records over an extended interval of time.

When interpreting this report’s implications, limitations inherent to any retrospective case review should be considered. The cohort of cases of prior VAMP included primarily healthy, fit, young service members; this population is not representative of the general population. The cohort included prior VAMP cases that generally occurred after smallpox vaccination. Experiences after smallpox vaccine may not apply to cardiac injury from other vaccines or etiologies. By the nature of this review, the population studied at the time of COVID-19 vaccination was somewhat older than those most likely to develop an initial bout of VAMP.² This review was limited by information available in the electronic health records of a small number of patients. Subclinical cases of VAMP and cases without adequate clinical evaluation also could not be included.

Conclusions

Noninfectious inflammation of the heart (myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis) is a rare AE following certain vaccines, especially live replicating smallpox vaccine and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In this observational analysis, the majority of patients with previous VAMP successfully received a COVID-19 vaccine without recurrence. The 4 patients who were identified with recurrent VAMP following COVID-19 vaccination all recovered with supportive care. While the CDC endorses that individuals with a history of infectious myocarditis may receive COVID-19 vaccine after symptoms have resolved, there is currently insufficient safety data regarding COVID-19 vaccination of those with prior non-COVID-19 VAMP or following subsequent COVID-19 vaccination in those with prior VAMP related to COVID-19.¹⁰ For these individuals, COVID-19 vaccination is a precaution.¹⁰ Although insufficient to determine a precise level of risk, this report does provide data on which to base the CDC-recommended shared decision-making counseling of these patients. More research is needed to better define factors that increase risk for, or protection from, immune-mediated AEs following immunization, including VAMP. While benefits of vaccination have clearly outweighed risks during the COVID-19 pandemic, such research may optimize future vaccine recommendations.¹⁸

Vaccinations have substantially reduced morbidity and mortality from many infectious diseases. Despite the clear value of vaccinations in public health, efforts to better understand adverse events (AEs) following immunization are important to sustain public trust and vaccine confidence. Noninfectious inflammation of the heart may manifest as myocarditis or pericarditis, or occasionally, with shared signs and symptoms of each, as myopericarditis. This is a rare AE following some immunizations. Vaccine-associated myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis (VAMP) has been most clearly associated with smallpox vaccines and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^1-6 Although extremely rare, VAMP also has been associated with other vaccines.^7,8 Limited information exists to guide shared clinical decision making on COVID-19 vaccination in persons with a history of VAMP. It is unknown whether individuals with a history of VAMP are at higher risk for developing a recurrence or experiencing a more severe outcome following COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

As part of the collaborative public health mission with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for enhanced vaccine AE surveillance, the Defense Health Agency Immunization Healthcare Division (IHD) maintains a clinical database of service members and beneficiaries referred for suspected AEs following immunizations. A review of all AEs following immunization cases in this database from January 1, 2003, through February 28, 2022, identified individuals meeting the following criteria: (a) VAMP prior to receipt of COVID-19 vaccine; (b) receipt of COVID-19 vaccine in 2021; and (c) medical documentation in available electronic health records sufficient to describe health status at least 30 days following COVID-19 vaccination.⁹ If medical entries suggested cardiac symptoms following a COVID-19 vaccine, additional information was sought to verify VAMP based on current published criteria.^10,11 Both the initial VAMP cases and the suspected COVID-19 VAMP cases were adjudicated by a team of vaccine experts and specialists in immunology, cardiology, and preventive medicine.

This retrospective review was approved and conducted in accordance with the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Institutional Review Board protocol #20664. All individuals with recurrent VAMP consented to share their health records and clinical details.

Results

Among 9260 cases in the IHD database, 431 met the case definition for VAMP.

Among the 179 patients included in this analysis, 171 (96%) were male. Their median age was 39 years at the time of COVID-19 vaccination.

Within 1 month of receipt of any COVID-19 vaccine, 11 individuals had documented symptoms suggesting cardiac involvement, specifically, chest pain, palpitations, or dyspnea. After cardiac evaluation, 4 patients met the criteria for VAMP after COVID-19 vaccination.^10,11 Seven patients either did not meet the criteria for VAMP or had alternative causes for their symptoms.

Two men aged 49 and 50 years with a history of vaccine-associated myocarditis following smallpox vaccination (Dryvax and ACAM2000) developed myocarditis 3 days after their second dose of the Moderna vaccine. One of these patients received a Pfizer-BioNTech booster 10 months later with no recurrence of symptoms. A 55-year-old man with a history of vaccine-associated myocarditis following Dryvax vaccination developed myocarditis 2 days after his Pfizer-BioNTech booster. None of the patients who developed post-COVID-19 VAMP reported residual symptoms from their initial VAMP episode, which occurred 12 to 18 years earlier. All were hospitalized briefly for observation and had complete symptom resolution within 6 weeks.

A 25-year-old man developed pericarditis 4 days after his second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination. His previous ACAM2000 vaccine-associated myocarditis occurred 3 years earlier, with no residual symptoms. Of note, he had a mild COVID-19 infection 78 days before the onset of his pericarditis. After the onset of his COVID-19 vaccine-associated pericarditis, he continued to experience transient bouts of chest pressure and exertional dyspnea that resolved within 7 months of onset.

The median interval between COVID-19 vaccine doses in those who developed post-COVID-19 VAMP was within the recommended mRNA vaccine dosing intervals of 3 to 4 weeks and was consistent with the median mRNA vaccine dosing intervals among the entire cohort.

Due to the small cohort size and other limitations of this study, the suggested rate of cardiac injury in this review (4 cases in 179 persons, or 2.2%) is an imprecise estimate of risk in a small population (95% CI, 0.1%-4.4%). While this rate may seem higher than expected within the general population after COVID-19 vaccination, it is lower than the estimated lifetime risk of recurrent myocarditis from any cause.^6,12

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first report describing cardiac outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination among a cohort of individuals with prior history of VAMP. Four cases of COVID-19 VAMP were identified among 179 patients with previous VAMP. All cases had experienced VAMP after the smallpox vaccine several years earlier, with complete resolution of symptoms. Three cases presented with recurrent VAMP after their second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and one after an mRNA booster dose. All fully recovered over the course of several months.

Myocarditis is a heterogeneous inflammatory injury with diverse, sometimes idiopathic, etiologies.¹³ In contrast to infection-related cardiac injury, prior reports of vaccine-associated myocarditis have suggested a hypersensitivity reaction characterized by patchy eosinophilic infiltrates, a benign clinical course, and good prognosis.^2,3

There are several common features between VAMP after smallpox and COVID-19 vaccination. Cases occur predominantly in young men. The onset of symptoms after smallpox vaccine (mean, 10 days) and after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (mean, 3 days) appears to correspond to the timing of peak postvaccination pro-inflammatory cytokine elevation.¹⁴ While all VAMP cases are serious events, the majority of patients appear to have a relatively benign clinical course with rapid and full recovery.¹³

Patients who have experienced an inflammatory cardiac injury may be at higher risk for recurrence, but quantifying risk of this rare phenomenon is challenging. Cases of VAMP after the COVID-19 vaccine have occasionally been reported in patients with previous cardiac injury unrelated to vaccination.^15-17 The cases presented here represent the first report of recurrent VAMP following prior non-COVID-19 vaccinations.

Most patients with prior VAMP in this cohort did not experience cardiac-suggestive symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination. Among 11 patients who developed symptoms, 3 had confirmed myocarditis and 1 had confirmed pericarditis. The clinical course for these patients with recurrent VAMP was observed to be no different in severity or duration from those who experience new-onset VAMP.⁴ All other patients not meeting criteria for VAMP or having alternative explanations for their symptoms also had a benign clinical course. Nonetheless, of the study cohort of 179, recurrent VAMP was diagnosed in 4 of the 11 who developed cardiac-suggestive symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination. The importance of cardiac evaluation should be emphasized for any patient presenting with chest pain, dyspnea, or other cardiac-suggestive symptoms following vaccination.

Strengths and Limitations

The strength of this review of VAMP recurrence associated with COVID-19 vaccination derives from our large and unique longitudinal database of VAMP among current and prior service members. Additionally, the IHD’s ongoing enhanced vaccine AEs surveillance provides the opportunity to contact patients and review their electronic health records over an extended interval of time.

When interpreting this report’s implications, limitations inherent to any retrospective case review should be considered. The cohort of cases of prior VAMP included primarily healthy, fit, young service members; this population is not representative of the general population. The cohort included prior VAMP cases that generally occurred after smallpox vaccination. Experiences after smallpox vaccine may not apply to cardiac injury from other vaccines or etiologies. By the nature of this review, the population studied at the time of COVID-19 vaccination was somewhat older than those most likely to develop an initial bout of VAMP.² This review was limited by information available in the electronic health records of a small number of patients. Subclinical cases of VAMP and cases without adequate clinical evaluation also could not be included.

Conclusions

Noninfectious inflammation of the heart (myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis) is a rare AE following certain vaccines, especially live replicating smallpox vaccine and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In this observational analysis, the majority of patients with previous VAMP successfully received a COVID-19 vaccine without recurrence. The 4 patients who were identified with recurrent VAMP following COVID-19 vaccination all recovered with supportive care. While the CDC endorses that individuals with a history of infectious myocarditis may receive COVID-19 vaccine after symptoms have resolved, there is currently insufficient safety data regarding COVID-19 vaccination of those with prior non-COVID-19 VAMP or following subsequent COVID-19 vaccination in those with prior VAMP related to COVID-19.¹⁰ For these individuals, COVID-19 vaccination is a precaution.¹⁰ Although insufficient to determine a precise level of risk, this report does provide data on which to base the CDC-recommended shared decision-making counseling of these patients. More research is needed to better define factors that increase risk for, or protection from, immune-mediated AEs following immunization, including VAMP. While benefits of vaccination have clearly outweighed risks during the COVID-19 pandemic, such research may optimize future vaccine recommendations.¹⁸

PARIS – How can the problem of poor treatment compliance in patients with hypertension be resolved? A new therapeutic approach could be a game-changer.

Many approaches have been explored in recent years to make life easier for patients living with chronic conditions that require them to take daily medication: subcutaneous implantable devices, nanogels, and, more specifically in the case of hypertension, renal denervation or small interfering RNA (siRNA) with a long half-life.

It’s siRNA that Michel Azizi, MD, PhD, head of the blood pressure clinic at Georges Pompidou European Hospital (HEGP) in Paris, discussed at the International Meeting of the French Society of Hypertension.

These small molecules have already shown their worth in treating rare diseases such as transthyretin amyloidosis. More recently, treating hypercholesterolemia with the PCSK9 inhibitor inclisiran has proven effective. “One subcutaneous injection of inclisiran reduces LDL cholesterol by 50% for a period of 210 days,” said Dr. Azizi.

The benefit of a new therapeutic siRNA – zilebesiran, administered subcutaneously – in treating hypertension is currently the subject of a phase II clinical trial.

This is a double-stranded RNA. One of the strands is linked to a sugar, N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc), which protects these highly fragile siRNA and binds with a very strong affinity in the liver. The second strand binds to a specific area of the RNA to prevent synthesis of the precursor peptide of angiotensin, angiotensinogen. The resulting effect is suppression of the production of angiotensin I and II, which leads to a long-lasting lowering of blood pressure.
 

Lasting efficacy

Phase I studies with zilebesiran have demonstrated a long-term effect, with a reduction of greater than 90% in circulating angiotensinogen over 6 months after a single subcutaneous dose (800 mg). The peak in reduction of circulating angiotensinogen occurs after approximately 3 weeks.

“It’s extremely powerful,” said Dr. Azizi.

Lasting reductions in blood pressure have also been observed, with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showing a reduction in systolic BP of greater than 15 mm Hg 8 weeks after administration of a single dose of zilebesiran (800 mg).

Zilebesiran was also well tolerated, with only mild to moderate reactions at the site of the injection (n = 5/56) and no serious treatment-related adverse events, hypotension, or significant changes in kidney or liver function.

“In terms of benefits, the effect is ongoing. Zilebesiran leads to reduced medication use and causes less variability in blood pressure response. Nevertheless, interfering RNA acts slowly, meaning that zilebesiran would not be suitable for people presenting with a hypertensive crisis. The fact that it blocks the renin-angiotensin system [RAS] for a very long period of time also poses the question of how to reverse its hypotensive effects,” said Dr. Azizi.
 

Unanswered questions

The lasting RAS antagonist and blood pressure–lowering effects pose a potential safety problem in circumstances involving patients in a state of hypovolemia and hypotension who require rapid blood pressure–raising interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality.

In recent studies, Estrellita Uijl et al. have thus examined strategies to counteract the blood pressure–lowering effect of siRNA in spontaneously hypertensive rats.

Fludrocortisone and a high-salt diet were both successful in gradually increasing blood pressure, which returned to its baseline levels on days 5 and 7, respectively. Yet this rate of response would be wholly inadequate in an urgent clinical situation.

However, midodrine could not reduce blood pressure to normal levels, whether administered subcutaneously or orally.

A rapid and short-lasting increase in blood pressure was observed with bolus doses of vasopressors, but clinically, these would need to be administered intravenously to achieve a lasting effect. Such administration would require hospitalization, close monitoring, and the use of human resources and additional health care provisions.

Encouragingly, the laboratory that created this molecule, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, has come up with an antidote: Reversir. It is a GalNAc-conjugated, single-stranded, high-affinity oligonucleotide complementary to the zilebesiran strand that achieves effective reversal of siRNA activity in 24 hours.

In the future, after the phase 2 trials have been completed, whether or not zilebesiran reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality remains to be seen. But as for Dr. Azizi, the director of HEGP’s blood pressure clinic in Paris, he has no doubt that “this approach is about to shake up how we treat patients in the cardiovascular field.”
 

On the horizon

Zilebesiran is being studied in phase 2 trials in patients with mild to moderate hypertension not taking antihypertensive drugs (KARDIA-1: 375 patients; double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-arm trial; zilebesiran at 150, 300, and 600 mg twice per year and 300 mg once every 3 months) and in patients whose blood pressure is not controlled (KARDIA-2: 800 patients; initial open-label start-up period of 4 weeks with indapamide/amlodipine/olmesartan, followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled study over 6 months, then an open-label extension study for up to 12 additional months; zilebesiran at 600 mg on the first day of the initial double-blind period, then every 6 months during the open-label extension period).

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – How can the problem of poor treatment compliance in patients with hypertension be resolved? A new therapeutic approach could be a game-changer.

Many approaches have been explored in recent years to make life easier for patients living with chronic conditions that require them to take daily medication: subcutaneous implantable devices, nanogels, and, more specifically in the case of hypertension, renal denervation or small interfering RNA (siRNA) with a long half-life.

It’s siRNA that Michel Azizi, MD, PhD, head of the blood pressure clinic at Georges Pompidou European Hospital (HEGP) in Paris, discussed at the International Meeting of the French Society of Hypertension.

These small molecules have already shown their worth in treating rare diseases such as transthyretin amyloidosis. More recently, treating hypercholesterolemia with the PCSK9 inhibitor inclisiran has proven effective. “One subcutaneous injection of inclisiran reduces LDL cholesterol by 50% for a period of 210 days,” said Dr. Azizi.

The benefit of a new therapeutic siRNA – zilebesiran, administered subcutaneously – in treating hypertension is currently the subject of a phase II clinical trial.

This is a double-stranded RNA. One of the strands is linked to a sugar, N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc), which protects these highly fragile siRNA and binds with a very strong affinity in the liver. The second strand binds to a specific area of the RNA to prevent synthesis of the precursor peptide of angiotensin, angiotensinogen. The resulting effect is suppression of the production of angiotensin I and II, which leads to a long-lasting lowering of blood pressure.
 

Lasting efficacy

Phase I studies with zilebesiran have demonstrated a long-term effect, with a reduction of greater than 90% in circulating angiotensinogen over 6 months after a single subcutaneous dose (800 mg). The peak in reduction of circulating angiotensinogen occurs after approximately 3 weeks.

“It’s extremely powerful,” said Dr. Azizi.

Lasting reductions in blood pressure have also been observed, with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showing a reduction in systolic BP of greater than 15 mm Hg 8 weeks after administration of a single dose of zilebesiran (800 mg).

Zilebesiran was also well tolerated, with only mild to moderate reactions at the site of the injection (n = 5/56) and no serious treatment-related adverse events, hypotension, or significant changes in kidney or liver function.

“In terms of benefits, the effect is ongoing. Zilebesiran leads to reduced medication use and causes less variability in blood pressure response. Nevertheless, interfering RNA acts slowly, meaning that zilebesiran would not be suitable for people presenting with a hypertensive crisis. The fact that it blocks the renin-angiotensin system [RAS] for a very long period of time also poses the question of how to reverse its hypotensive effects,” said Dr. Azizi.
 

Unanswered questions

The lasting RAS antagonist and blood pressure–lowering effects pose a potential safety problem in circumstances involving patients in a state of hypovolemia and hypotension who require rapid blood pressure–raising interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality.

In recent studies, Estrellita Uijl et al. have thus examined strategies to counteract the blood pressure–lowering effect of siRNA in spontaneously hypertensive rats.

Fludrocortisone and a high-salt diet were both successful in gradually increasing blood pressure, which returned to its baseline levels on days 5 and 7, respectively. Yet this rate of response would be wholly inadequate in an urgent clinical situation.

However, midodrine could not reduce blood pressure to normal levels, whether administered subcutaneously or orally.

A rapid and short-lasting increase in blood pressure was observed with bolus doses of vasopressors, but clinically, these would need to be administered intravenously to achieve a lasting effect. Such administration would require hospitalization, close monitoring, and the use of human resources and additional health care provisions.

Encouragingly, the laboratory that created this molecule, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, has come up with an antidote: Reversir. It is a GalNAc-conjugated, single-stranded, high-affinity oligonucleotide complementary to the zilebesiran strand that achieves effective reversal of siRNA activity in 24 hours.

In the future, after the phase 2 trials have been completed, whether or not zilebesiran reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality remains to be seen. But as for Dr. Azizi, the director of HEGP’s blood pressure clinic in Paris, he has no doubt that “this approach is about to shake up how we treat patients in the cardiovascular field.”
 

On the horizon

Zilebesiran is being studied in phase 2 trials in patients with mild to moderate hypertension not taking antihypertensive drugs (KARDIA-1: 375 patients; double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-arm trial; zilebesiran at 150, 300, and 600 mg twice per year and 300 mg once every 3 months) and in patients whose blood pressure is not controlled (KARDIA-2: 800 patients; initial open-label start-up period of 4 weeks with indapamide/amlodipine/olmesartan, followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled study over 6 months, then an open-label extension study for up to 12 additional months; zilebesiran at 600 mg on the first day of the initial double-blind period, then every 6 months during the open-label extension period).

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – How can the problem of poor treatment compliance in patients with hypertension be resolved? A new therapeutic approach could be a game-changer.

Many approaches have been explored in recent years to make life easier for patients living with chronic conditions that require them to take daily medication: subcutaneous implantable devices, nanogels, and, more specifically in the case of hypertension, renal denervation or small interfering RNA (siRNA) with a long half-life.

It’s siRNA that Michel Azizi, MD, PhD, head of the blood pressure clinic at Georges Pompidou European Hospital (HEGP) in Paris, discussed at the International Meeting of the French Society of Hypertension.

These small molecules have already shown their worth in treating rare diseases such as transthyretin amyloidosis. More recently, treating hypercholesterolemia with the PCSK9 inhibitor inclisiran has proven effective. “One subcutaneous injection of inclisiran reduces LDL cholesterol by 50% for a period of 210 days,” said Dr. Azizi.

The benefit of a new therapeutic siRNA – zilebesiran, administered subcutaneously – in treating hypertension is currently the subject of a phase II clinical trial.

This is a double-stranded RNA. One of the strands is linked to a sugar, N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc), which protects these highly fragile siRNA and binds with a very strong affinity in the liver. The second strand binds to a specific area of the RNA to prevent synthesis of the precursor peptide of angiotensin, angiotensinogen. The resulting effect is suppression of the production of angiotensin I and II, which leads to a long-lasting lowering of blood pressure.
 

Lasting efficacy

Phase I studies with zilebesiran have demonstrated a long-term effect, with a reduction of greater than 90% in circulating angiotensinogen over 6 months after a single subcutaneous dose (800 mg). The peak in reduction of circulating angiotensinogen occurs after approximately 3 weeks.

“It’s extremely powerful,” said Dr. Azizi.

Lasting reductions in blood pressure have also been observed, with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showing a reduction in systolic BP of greater than 15 mm Hg 8 weeks after administration of a single dose of zilebesiran (800 mg).

Zilebesiran was also well tolerated, with only mild to moderate reactions at the site of the injection (n = 5/56) and no serious treatment-related adverse events, hypotension, or significant changes in kidney or liver function.

“In terms of benefits, the effect is ongoing. Zilebesiran leads to reduced medication use and causes less variability in blood pressure response. Nevertheless, interfering RNA acts slowly, meaning that zilebesiran would not be suitable for people presenting with a hypertensive crisis. The fact that it blocks the renin-angiotensin system [RAS] for a very long period of time also poses the question of how to reverse its hypotensive effects,” said Dr. Azizi.
 

Unanswered questions

The lasting RAS antagonist and blood pressure–lowering effects pose a potential safety problem in circumstances involving patients in a state of hypovolemia and hypotension who require rapid blood pressure–raising interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality.

In recent studies, Estrellita Uijl et al. have thus examined strategies to counteract the blood pressure–lowering effect of siRNA in spontaneously hypertensive rats.

Fludrocortisone and a high-salt diet were both successful in gradually increasing blood pressure, which returned to its baseline levels on days 5 and 7, respectively. Yet this rate of response would be wholly inadequate in an urgent clinical situation.

However, midodrine could not reduce blood pressure to normal levels, whether administered subcutaneously or orally.

A rapid and short-lasting increase in blood pressure was observed with bolus doses of vasopressors, but clinically, these would need to be administered intravenously to achieve a lasting effect. Such administration would require hospitalization, close monitoring, and the use of human resources and additional health care provisions.

Encouragingly, the laboratory that created this molecule, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, has come up with an antidote: Reversir. It is a GalNAc-conjugated, single-stranded, high-affinity oligonucleotide complementary to the zilebesiran strand that achieves effective reversal of siRNA activity in 24 hours.

In the future, after the phase 2 trials have been completed, whether or not zilebesiran reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality remains to be seen. But as for Dr. Azizi, the director of HEGP’s blood pressure clinic in Paris, he has no doubt that “this approach is about to shake up how we treat patients in the cardiovascular field.”
 

On the horizon

Zilebesiran is being studied in phase 2 trials in patients with mild to moderate hypertension not taking antihypertensive drugs (KARDIA-1: 375 patients; double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-arm trial; zilebesiran at 150, 300, and 600 mg twice per year and 300 mg once every 3 months) and in patients whose blood pressure is not controlled (KARDIA-2: 800 patients; initial open-label start-up period of 4 weeks with indapamide/amlodipine/olmesartan, followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled study over 6 months, then an open-label extension study for up to 12 additional months; zilebesiran at 600 mg on the first day of the initial double-blind period, then every 6 months during the open-label extension period).

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Atrial dysfunction, widely considered a marker or consequence of other heart diseases, is a relevant clinical entity, which is why it is justified to define atrial failure or insufficiency as “a new syndrome that all cardiologists should be aware of,” said Adrián Baranchuk, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., during the 2022 48th Argentine Congress of Cardiology in Buenos Aires.

“The atria are like the heart’s silly sisters and can fail just like the ventricle fails. Understanding their function and dysfunction helps us to understand heart failure. And as electrophysiologists and clinical cardiologists, we have to embrace this concept and understand it in depth,” Dr. Baranchuk, president-elect of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology, said in an interview.

The specialist first proposed atrial failure as an entity or syndrome in early 2020 in an article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. His four collaborators included the experienced Eugene Braunwald, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Antoni Bayés de Luna, PhD, from the department of medicine of the autonomous University of Barcelona.
 

Pathology despite function

“In many patients with heart failure, the pump function is preserved, but what causes the pathology? For the last 5-10 years, attention has been focused on the ventricle: whether it contracts poorly or whether it contracts properly and relaxes poorly. However, we have also seen patients in whom the ventricle contracts properly and relaxes properly. Where else can we look? We started looking at atrial contraction, especially the left atrium,” recalled Dr. Baranchuk.

He and his colleagues proposed the following consensus definition of atrial failure or insufficiency: any atrial dysfunction (anatomical, mechanical, electrical, and rheological, including blood homeostasis) that causes impaired function, heart symptoms, and a worsening of quality of life (or life expectancy) in the absence of significant valvular or ventricular abnormalities.

In his presentation, recorded and projected by video from Canada, Dr. Baranchuk pointed out that there are two large groups of causes of atrial failure: one that has to do with electrical disorders of atrial and interatrial contraction and another related to the progressive development of fibrosis, which gradually leads to dyssynchrony in interatrial contraction, pump failure, and impaired atrial function as a reservoir and as a conduit.

“In turn, these mechanisms trigger neurohormonal alterations that perpetuate atrial failure, so it is not just a matter of progressive fibrosis, which is very difficult to treat, but also of constant neurohormonal activation that guarantees that these phenomena never resolve,” said Dr. Baranchuk. The manifestations or end point of this cascade of events are the known ones: stroke, ischemia, and heart failure.
 

New entity necessary?

Defining atrial failure or insufficiency as a clinical entity not only restores the hierarchy of the atria in cardiac function, which was already postulated by William Harvey in 1628, but also enables new lines of research that would eventually allow timely preventive interventions.

One key is early recognition of partial or total interatrial block by analyzing the characteristics of the P wave on the electrocardiogram, which could serve to prevent progression to atrial fibrillation. Left atrial enlargement can also be detected by echocardiography.

“When the contractile impairment is severe and you are in atrial fibrillation, all that remains is to apply patches. The strategy is to correct risk factors beforehand, such as high blood pressure, sleep apnea, or high-dose alcohol consumption, as well as tirelessly searching for atrial fibrillation, with Holter electrocardiograms, continuous monitoring devices, such as Apple Watch, KardiaMobile, or an implantable loop recorder,” Dr. Baranchuk said in an interview.

Two ongoing or planned studies, ARCADIA and AMIABLE, will seek to determine whether anticoagulation in patients with elevated cardiovascular risk scores and any of these atrial disorders that have not yet led to atrial fibrillation could reduce the incidence of stroke.

The strategy has a rational basis. In a subanalysis of raw data from the NAVIGATE ESUS study in patients with embolic stroke of unknown cause, Dr. Baranchuk estimated that the presence of interatrial block was a tenfold higher predictor of the risk of experiencing a second stroke. Another 2018 observational study in which he participated found that in outpatients with heart failure, advanced interatrial block approximately tripled the risk of developing atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke.

For Dr. Baranchuk, other questions that still need to be answered include whether drugs used for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction can be useful in primary atrial failure or whether specific drugs can be repositioned or developed to suppress or slow the process of fibrosis. “From generating the clinical concept, many lines of research are enabled.”

“The concept of atrial failure is very interesting and opens our eyes to treatments,” another speaker at the session, Alejo Tronconi, MD, a cardiologist and electrophysiologist at the Cardiovascular Institute of the South, Cipolletti, Argentina, said in an interview.

“It is necessary to cut circuits that have been extensively studied in heart failure models, and now we are beginning to see their participation in atrial dysfunction,” he said.

Dr. Baranchuk and Dr. Tronconi declared no relevant financial conflict of interest.

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

Atrial dysfunction, widely considered a marker or consequence of other heart diseases, is a relevant clinical entity, which is why it is justified to define atrial failure or insufficiency as “a new syndrome that all cardiologists should be aware of,” said Adrián Baranchuk, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., during the 2022 48th Argentine Congress of Cardiology in Buenos Aires.

“The atria are like the heart’s silly sisters and can fail just like the ventricle fails. Understanding their function and dysfunction helps us to understand heart failure. And as electrophysiologists and clinical cardiologists, we have to embrace this concept and understand it in depth,” Dr. Baranchuk, president-elect of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology, said in an interview.

The specialist first proposed atrial failure as an entity or syndrome in early 2020 in an article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. His four collaborators included the experienced Eugene Braunwald, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Antoni Bayés de Luna, PhD, from the department of medicine of the autonomous University of Barcelona.
 

Pathology despite function

“In many patients with heart failure, the pump function is preserved, but what causes the pathology? For the last 5-10 years, attention has been focused on the ventricle: whether it contracts poorly or whether it contracts properly and relaxes poorly. However, we have also seen patients in whom the ventricle contracts properly and relaxes properly. Where else can we look? We started looking at atrial contraction, especially the left atrium,” recalled Dr. Baranchuk.

He and his colleagues proposed the following consensus definition of atrial failure or insufficiency: any atrial dysfunction (anatomical, mechanical, electrical, and rheological, including blood homeostasis) that causes impaired function, heart symptoms, and a worsening of quality of life (or life expectancy) in the absence of significant valvular or ventricular abnormalities.

In his presentation, recorded and projected by video from Canada, Dr. Baranchuk pointed out that there are two large groups of causes of atrial failure: one that has to do with electrical disorders of atrial and interatrial contraction and another related to the progressive development of fibrosis, which gradually leads to dyssynchrony in interatrial contraction, pump failure, and impaired atrial function as a reservoir and as a conduit.

“In turn, these mechanisms trigger neurohormonal alterations that perpetuate atrial failure, so it is not just a matter of progressive fibrosis, which is very difficult to treat, but also of constant neurohormonal activation that guarantees that these phenomena never resolve,” said Dr. Baranchuk. The manifestations or end point of this cascade of events are the known ones: stroke, ischemia, and heart failure.
 

New entity necessary?

Defining atrial failure or insufficiency as a clinical entity not only restores the hierarchy of the atria in cardiac function, which was already postulated by William Harvey in 1628, but also enables new lines of research that would eventually allow timely preventive interventions.

One key is early recognition of partial or total interatrial block by analyzing the characteristics of the P wave on the electrocardiogram, which could serve to prevent progression to atrial fibrillation. Left atrial enlargement can also be detected by echocardiography.

“When the contractile impairment is severe and you are in atrial fibrillation, all that remains is to apply patches. The strategy is to correct risk factors beforehand, such as high blood pressure, sleep apnea, or high-dose alcohol consumption, as well as tirelessly searching for atrial fibrillation, with Holter electrocardiograms, continuous monitoring devices, such as Apple Watch, KardiaMobile, or an implantable loop recorder,” Dr. Baranchuk said in an interview.

Two ongoing or planned studies, ARCADIA and AMIABLE, will seek to determine whether anticoagulation in patients with elevated cardiovascular risk scores and any of these atrial disorders that have not yet led to atrial fibrillation could reduce the incidence of stroke.

The strategy has a rational basis. In a subanalysis of raw data from the NAVIGATE ESUS study in patients with embolic stroke of unknown cause, Dr. Baranchuk estimated that the presence of interatrial block was a tenfold higher predictor of the risk of experiencing a second stroke. Another 2018 observational study in which he participated found that in outpatients with heart failure, advanced interatrial block approximately tripled the risk of developing atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke.

For Dr. Baranchuk, other questions that still need to be answered include whether drugs used for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction can be useful in primary atrial failure or whether specific drugs can be repositioned or developed to suppress or slow the process of fibrosis. “From generating the clinical concept, many lines of research are enabled.”

“The concept of atrial failure is very interesting and opens our eyes to treatments,” another speaker at the session, Alejo Tronconi, MD, a cardiologist and electrophysiologist at the Cardiovascular Institute of the South, Cipolletti, Argentina, said in an interview.

“It is necessary to cut circuits that have been extensively studied in heart failure models, and now we are beginning to see their participation in atrial dysfunction,” he said.

Dr. Baranchuk and Dr. Tronconi declared no relevant financial conflict of interest.

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

Atrial dysfunction, widely considered a marker or consequence of other heart diseases, is a relevant clinical entity, which is why it is justified to define atrial failure or insufficiency as “a new syndrome that all cardiologists should be aware of,” said Adrián Baranchuk, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., during the 2022 48th Argentine Congress of Cardiology in Buenos Aires.

“The atria are like the heart’s silly sisters and can fail just like the ventricle fails. Understanding their function and dysfunction helps us to understand heart failure. And as electrophysiologists and clinical cardiologists, we have to embrace this concept and understand it in depth,” Dr. Baranchuk, president-elect of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology, said in an interview.

The specialist first proposed atrial failure as an entity or syndrome in early 2020 in an article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. His four collaborators included the experienced Eugene Braunwald, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Antoni Bayés de Luna, PhD, from the department of medicine of the autonomous University of Barcelona.
 

Pathology despite function

“In many patients with heart failure, the pump function is preserved, but what causes the pathology? For the last 5-10 years, attention has been focused on the ventricle: whether it contracts poorly or whether it contracts properly and relaxes poorly. However, we have also seen patients in whom the ventricle contracts properly and relaxes properly. Where else can we look? We started looking at atrial contraction, especially the left atrium,” recalled Dr. Baranchuk.

He and his colleagues proposed the following consensus definition of atrial failure or insufficiency: any atrial dysfunction (anatomical, mechanical, electrical, and rheological, including blood homeostasis) that causes impaired function, heart symptoms, and a worsening of quality of life (or life expectancy) in the absence of significant valvular or ventricular abnormalities.

In his presentation, recorded and projected by video from Canada, Dr. Baranchuk pointed out that there are two large groups of causes of atrial failure: one that has to do with electrical disorders of atrial and interatrial contraction and another related to the progressive development of fibrosis, which gradually leads to dyssynchrony in interatrial contraction, pump failure, and impaired atrial function as a reservoir and as a conduit.

“In turn, these mechanisms trigger neurohormonal alterations that perpetuate atrial failure, so it is not just a matter of progressive fibrosis, which is very difficult to treat, but also of constant neurohormonal activation that guarantees that these phenomena never resolve,” said Dr. Baranchuk. The manifestations or end point of this cascade of events are the known ones: stroke, ischemia, and heart failure.
 

New entity necessary?

Defining atrial failure or insufficiency as a clinical entity not only restores the hierarchy of the atria in cardiac function, which was already postulated by William Harvey in 1628, but also enables new lines of research that would eventually allow timely preventive interventions.

One key is early recognition of partial or total interatrial block by analyzing the characteristics of the P wave on the electrocardiogram, which could serve to prevent progression to atrial fibrillation. Left atrial enlargement can also be detected by echocardiography.

“When the contractile impairment is severe and you are in atrial fibrillation, all that remains is to apply patches. The strategy is to correct risk factors beforehand, such as high blood pressure, sleep apnea, or high-dose alcohol consumption, as well as tirelessly searching for atrial fibrillation, with Holter electrocardiograms, continuous monitoring devices, such as Apple Watch, KardiaMobile, or an implantable loop recorder,” Dr. Baranchuk said in an interview.

Two ongoing or planned studies, ARCADIA and AMIABLE, will seek to determine whether anticoagulation in patients with elevated cardiovascular risk scores and any of these atrial disorders that have not yet led to atrial fibrillation could reduce the incidence of stroke.

The strategy has a rational basis. In a subanalysis of raw data from the NAVIGATE ESUS study in patients with embolic stroke of unknown cause, Dr. Baranchuk estimated that the presence of interatrial block was a tenfold higher predictor of the risk of experiencing a second stroke. Another 2018 observational study in which he participated found that in outpatients with heart failure, advanced interatrial block approximately tripled the risk of developing atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke.

For Dr. Baranchuk, other questions that still need to be answered include whether drugs used for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction can be useful in primary atrial failure or whether specific drugs can be repositioned or developed to suppress or slow the process of fibrosis. “From generating the clinical concept, many lines of research are enabled.”

“The concept of atrial failure is very interesting and opens our eyes to treatments,” another speaker at the session, Alejo Tronconi, MD, a cardiologist and electrophysiologist at the Cardiovascular Institute of the South, Cipolletti, Argentina, said in an interview.

“It is necessary to cut circuits that have been extensively studied in heart failure models, and now we are beginning to see their participation in atrial dysfunction,” he said.

Dr. Baranchuk and Dr. Tronconi declared no relevant financial conflict of interest.

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

Atropine is often considered a first-line intervention for unstable bradycardia. Unfortunately, atropine often fails when the bradycardia is not vagally induced and is not indicated for high-level atrioventricular blocks (for example, Mobitz II and third-degree AV block).

Transvenous pacing is typically the most effective therapy for unstable bradycardia but it is invasive, takes some time to perform, and is a procedure for which many acute care physicians lack comfort and significant experience. Transcutaneous pacing (TCP), on the other hand, is fast, easy to perform, and tends to be well tolerated by most patients when they receive appropriate doses of analgesia.

Unfortunately, TCP often fails to produce electrical or, more importantly, mechanical capture. Oftentimes when capture initially fails, the electrical current is increased in hopes of gaining capture but much to the discomfort of the patient. Increased body mass index can contribute to failure to capture, but what about TCP pad position? Despite recommendations for TCP in the United States and European resuscitation guidelines for many years, until now, no studies have evaluated optimal pad position for TCP. As a result, the default position for most clinicians using TCP has been the anterior-lateral (AL) position on the chest wall.

A study published in October 2022 compared the common AL position (anterior pad placed at the right upper chest and lateral pad placed over the left lower rib cage at the mid-axillary line) with the anterior-posterior (AP) position (anterior pad placed on the left chest over the apex of the heart and the posterior pad on the left mid-back area approximating the level of the mid-portion of the heart). The AP position has become more commonly used in defibrillating arrested hearts because it more accurately sends the current through the left ventricle. The concern with the AL position, especially in patients with large body habitus, is that the vector of the current may partially or entirely miss the left ventricle.

Moayedi and colleagues hypothesized that optimal TCP should employ pad placement that is similar to that used during optimal defibrillation attempts. They conducted a study comparing AL versus AP position during TCP and published their results in two parts, which will be discussed together.

The investigators evaluated 20 patients (6 women, 14 men) who had elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in the electrophysiology lab (Resuscitation. 2022 Dec;181:140-6). After successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm, the cardioversion pads were removed, and two new sets of pacer pads were placed on the patients’ chests. Pads were placed in both the AL and the AP positions, as previously described. Starting at a current output of 40 mA, the output was slowly increased on one set of pads until mechanical capture was obtained at the same rate as the pacer setting for at least 10 seconds. Pacing was then discontinued, but then the process was repeated using the second set of pads. The order in which the positions were tested (that is, AL tested first vs. AP tested first) was alternated. If capture was not obtained by 140 mA (the pacer’s maximum output), failure to capture was documented. Both positions were tested in all patients except for three cases where the second position was not tested because of inadequate analgesia.

The investigators found that 8 in 19 (42%) of the AL trials and 14 in 18 (78%) of the AP trials successfully captured. For the 17 participants who completed both trials, both positions captured in 8 in 17 (47%). AP but not AL was captured in 5 in 17 (29%); AL but not AP was captured in 0 cases. Neither position captured in 4 in 17 (24%). Of note, there was no association between successful capture and body mass index, chest circumference, or chest diameter. The AP position was more successful in both women and men, compared with the AL position. The investigators also found that, among the successful trials, the AP position tended to capture at lower currents than the AL position (93 mA vs. 126 mA).
 

In summary

TCP is a potentially lifesaving intervention in the treatment of patients with unstable bradycardia. Many of us who have attempted to perform TCP on unstable patients have frequently been disappointed with the results. In retrospect, however, I can recall that each time I have attempted this procedure, it has been using pads placed in the AL position.

Now for the first time we have data indicating that the standard AL position may be suboptimal, compared with the AP position. The study by Moayedi and colleagues is small, but the results are compelling, and the AP pad placement intuitively makes more sense. By using the AP pad placement, which provides greater likelihood of electrical current passing through the left ventricle, we should expect a greater likelihood of successful capture during attempts at TCP. In addition, we may anticipate lower analgesia needs if the AP position requires less current for success. Kudos to Moayedi and colleagues for performing a novel study of a critical procedure in acute care medicine.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He had no disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Atropine is often considered a first-line intervention for unstable bradycardia. Unfortunately, atropine often fails when the bradycardia is not vagally induced and is not indicated for high-level atrioventricular blocks (for example, Mobitz II and third-degree AV block).

Transvenous pacing is typically the most effective therapy for unstable bradycardia but it is invasive, takes some time to perform, and is a procedure for which many acute care physicians lack comfort and significant experience. Transcutaneous pacing (TCP), on the other hand, is fast, easy to perform, and tends to be well tolerated by most patients when they receive appropriate doses of analgesia.

Unfortunately, TCP often fails to produce electrical or, more importantly, mechanical capture. Oftentimes when capture initially fails, the electrical current is increased in hopes of gaining capture but much to the discomfort of the patient. Increased body mass index can contribute to failure to capture, but what about TCP pad position? Despite recommendations for TCP in the United States and European resuscitation guidelines for many years, until now, no studies have evaluated optimal pad position for TCP. As a result, the default position for most clinicians using TCP has been the anterior-lateral (AL) position on the chest wall.

A study published in October 2022 compared the common AL position (anterior pad placed at the right upper chest and lateral pad placed over the left lower rib cage at the mid-axillary line) with the anterior-posterior (AP) position (anterior pad placed on the left chest over the apex of the heart and the posterior pad on the left mid-back area approximating the level of the mid-portion of the heart). The AP position has become more commonly used in defibrillating arrested hearts because it more accurately sends the current through the left ventricle. The concern with the AL position, especially in patients with large body habitus, is that the vector of the current may partially or entirely miss the left ventricle.

Moayedi and colleagues hypothesized that optimal TCP should employ pad placement that is similar to that used during optimal defibrillation attempts. They conducted a study comparing AL versus AP position during TCP and published their results in two parts, which will be discussed together.

The investigators evaluated 20 patients (6 women, 14 men) who had elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in the electrophysiology lab (Resuscitation. 2022 Dec;181:140-6). After successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm, the cardioversion pads were removed, and two new sets of pacer pads were placed on the patients’ chests. Pads were placed in both the AL and the AP positions, as previously described. Starting at a current output of 40 mA, the output was slowly increased on one set of pads until mechanical capture was obtained at the same rate as the pacer setting for at least 10 seconds. Pacing was then discontinued, but then the process was repeated using the second set of pads. The order in which the positions were tested (that is, AL tested first vs. AP tested first) was alternated. If capture was not obtained by 140 mA (the pacer’s maximum output), failure to capture was documented. Both positions were tested in all patients except for three cases where the second position was not tested because of inadequate analgesia.

The investigators found that 8 in 19 (42%) of the AL trials and 14 in 18 (78%) of the AP trials successfully captured. For the 17 participants who completed both trials, both positions captured in 8 in 17 (47%). AP but not AL was captured in 5 in 17 (29%); AL but not AP was captured in 0 cases. Neither position captured in 4 in 17 (24%). Of note, there was no association between successful capture and body mass index, chest circumference, or chest diameter. The AP position was more successful in both women and men, compared with the AL position. The investigators also found that, among the successful trials, the AP position tended to capture at lower currents than the AL position (93 mA vs. 126 mA).
 

In summary

TCP is a potentially lifesaving intervention in the treatment of patients with unstable bradycardia. Many of us who have attempted to perform TCP on unstable patients have frequently been disappointed with the results. In retrospect, however, I can recall that each time I have attempted this procedure, it has been using pads placed in the AL position.

Now for the first time we have data indicating that the standard AL position may be suboptimal, compared with the AP position. The study by Moayedi and colleagues is small, but the results are compelling, and the AP pad placement intuitively makes more sense. By using the AP pad placement, which provides greater likelihood of electrical current passing through the left ventricle, we should expect a greater likelihood of successful capture during attempts at TCP. In addition, we may anticipate lower analgesia needs if the AP position requires less current for success. Kudos to Moayedi and colleagues for performing a novel study of a critical procedure in acute care medicine.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He had no disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Atropine is often considered a first-line intervention for unstable bradycardia. Unfortunately, atropine often fails when the bradycardia is not vagally induced and is not indicated for high-level atrioventricular blocks (for example, Mobitz II and third-degree AV block).

Transvenous pacing is typically the most effective therapy for unstable bradycardia but it is invasive, takes some time to perform, and is a procedure for which many acute care physicians lack comfort and significant experience. Transcutaneous pacing (TCP), on the other hand, is fast, easy to perform, and tends to be well tolerated by most patients when they receive appropriate doses of analgesia.

Unfortunately, TCP often fails to produce electrical or, more importantly, mechanical capture. Oftentimes when capture initially fails, the electrical current is increased in hopes of gaining capture but much to the discomfort of the patient. Increased body mass index can contribute to failure to capture, but what about TCP pad position? Despite recommendations for TCP in the United States and European resuscitation guidelines for many years, until now, no studies have evaluated optimal pad position for TCP. As a result, the default position for most clinicians using TCP has been the anterior-lateral (AL) position on the chest wall.

A study published in October 2022 compared the common AL position (anterior pad placed at the right upper chest and lateral pad placed over the left lower rib cage at the mid-axillary line) with the anterior-posterior (AP) position (anterior pad placed on the left chest over the apex of the heart and the posterior pad on the left mid-back area approximating the level of the mid-portion of the heart). The AP position has become more commonly used in defibrillating arrested hearts because it more accurately sends the current through the left ventricle. The concern with the AL position, especially in patients with large body habitus, is that the vector of the current may partially or entirely miss the left ventricle.

Moayedi and colleagues hypothesized that optimal TCP should employ pad placement that is similar to that used during optimal defibrillation attempts. They conducted a study comparing AL versus AP position during TCP and published their results in two parts, which will be discussed together.

The investigators evaluated 20 patients (6 women, 14 men) who had elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in the electrophysiology lab (Resuscitation. 2022 Dec;181:140-6). After successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm, the cardioversion pads were removed, and two new sets of pacer pads were placed on the patients’ chests. Pads were placed in both the AL and the AP positions, as previously described. Starting at a current output of 40 mA, the output was slowly increased on one set of pads until mechanical capture was obtained at the same rate as the pacer setting for at least 10 seconds. Pacing was then discontinued, but then the process was repeated using the second set of pads. The order in which the positions were tested (that is, AL tested first vs. AP tested first) was alternated. If capture was not obtained by 140 mA (the pacer’s maximum output), failure to capture was documented. Both positions were tested in all patients except for three cases where the second position was not tested because of inadequate analgesia.

The investigators found that 8 in 19 (42%) of the AL trials and 14 in 18 (78%) of the AP trials successfully captured. For the 17 participants who completed both trials, both positions captured in 8 in 17 (47%). AP but not AL was captured in 5 in 17 (29%); AL but not AP was captured in 0 cases. Neither position captured in 4 in 17 (24%). Of note, there was no association between successful capture and body mass index, chest circumference, or chest diameter. The AP position was more successful in both women and men, compared with the AL position. The investigators also found that, among the successful trials, the AP position tended to capture at lower currents than the AL position (93 mA vs. 126 mA).
 

In summary

TCP is a potentially lifesaving intervention in the treatment of patients with unstable bradycardia. Many of us who have attempted to perform TCP on unstable patients have frequently been disappointed with the results. In retrospect, however, I can recall that each time I have attempted this procedure, it has been using pads placed in the AL position.

Now for the first time we have data indicating that the standard AL position may be suboptimal, compared with the AP position. The study by Moayedi and colleagues is small, but the results are compelling, and the AP pad placement intuitively makes more sense. By using the AP pad placement, which provides greater likelihood of electrical current passing through the left ventricle, we should expect a greater likelihood of successful capture during attempts at TCP. In addition, we may anticipate lower analgesia needs if the AP position requires less current for success. Kudos to Moayedi and colleagues for performing a novel study of a critical procedure in acute care medicine.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He had no disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It started as a mountain biking excursion with two friends. When we drove into the trailhead parking lot, we saw several emergency vehicles. Then a helicopter passed overhead. As we got on our bikes, a police officer told us there’d been an accident out on the trail and to be careful because emergency personnel were going to be bringing in the patient. So we started the ride cautiously, ready to yield to emergency medical services.

Half a mile down the trail, we encountered another police officer. He asked if we would be willing to go back to get an oxygen tank from the ambulance and carry it out to the scene. The three of us turned around, went back to the parking lot and were able to snag a tank of oxygen. We put it in a backpack and biked out again.

We found the scene about a mile down the trail. An adult male was lying on his back in the dirt after a crash. His eyes were closed and he wasn’t moving except for occasional breaths. Six emergency medical personnel huddled around him, one assisting breaths with a bag mask. I didn’t introduce myself initially. I just listened to hear what was happening.

They were debating the dose of medication to give him in order to intubate. I knew the answer to that question, so I introduced myself. They were happy to have somebody else to assist.

They already had an IV in place and quite a lot of supplies. They administered the meds and the paramedic attempted to intubate through the mouth. Within a few seconds, she pulled the intubating blade out and said, “I’m not going to be able to get this. His tongue is too big.”

I took the blade myself and kneeled at the head of the victim. I made three attempts at intubating, and each time couldn’t view the landmarks. I wasn’t sure if his tongue was too large or if there was some traumatic injury. To make it more difficult, a lot of secretions clogged the airway. The paramedics had a portable suction, which was somewhat functional, but I still couldn’t visualize the landmarks.

I started asking about alternative methods of establishing an airway. They had an i-gel, which is a supraglottic device that goes into the back of the mouth. So, we placed it. But when we attached the bag, air still wasn’t getting into the lungs.

We removed it and put the bag mask back on. Now I was worried. We were having difficulty keeping his oxygen above 90%. I examined the chest and abdomen again. I was wondering if perhaps he was having some gastric distention, which can result from prolonged bagging, but that didn’t seem to be the case.

Bagging became progressively more difficult, and the oxygen slowly trended down through the 80s. Then the 70s. Heart rate dropped below 60 beats per minute. The trajectory was obvious.

That’s when I asked if they had the tools for a surgical airway.

No one thought the question was crazy. In fact, they pulled out a scalpel from an equipment bag.

But now I had to actually do it. I knelt next to the patient, trying to palpate the front of the neck to identify the correct location to cut. I had difficulty finding the appropriate landmarks there as well. Frustrating.

I glanced at the monitor. O₂ was now in the 60s. Later the paramedic told me the heart rate was down to 30.

One of the medics looked me in the eye and said, “We’ve got to do something. The time is now.” That helped me snap out of it and act. I made my large vertical incision on the front of the victim’s neck, which of course resulted in quite a bit of bleeding.

My two friends, who were watching, later told me this was the moment the intensity of the scene really increased (it was already pretty intense for me, thanks).

Next, I made the horizontal stab incision. Then I probed with my finger, but it seems the incision hadn’t reached the trachea. I had to make the stab much deeper than I would’ve thought.

And then air bubbled out through the blood. A paramedic was ready with the ET tube in hand and she put it through the incision. We attached the bag. We had air movement into the lungs, and within minutes the oxygen came up.

Not long after, the flight paramedics from the helicopter showed up, having jogged a mile through the woods. They seemed rather surprised to find a patient with a cricothyrotomy. We filled them in on the situation. Now we had to get the patient out of the woods (literally and figuratively).

The emergency responders had a really great transport device: A litter with one big wheel underneath in the middle so we could roll the patient down the mountain bike trail over rocks relatively safely. One person’s job was to hold the tube as we went since we didn’t have suture to hold it in place.

We got back to the parking lot and loaded him into the ambulance, which drove another mile to the helicopter, which then had to take him a hundred miles to the hospital.

To be honest, I thought the prognosis was poor. I suspected he had an intercranial bleed slowly squeezing his brain (that later turned out to not be the case). Even though we had established an airway, it took us so long to get him to the ambulance.

The director of the local EMS called me that evening and said the patient had made it to the hospital. I had never been a part of anything with this intensity. I definitely lost sleep over it. Partly just from the uncertainty of not knowing what the outcome would be. But also second-guessing if I had done everything that I could have.

The story doesn’t quite end there, however.

A week later, a friend of the patient called me. He had recovered well and was going to be discharged from the hospital. He’d chosen to share the story with the media, and the local TV station was going to interview him. They had asked if I would agree to be interviewed.

After the local news story ran, it was kind of a media blitz. In came numerous media requests. But honestly, the portrayal of the story made me feel really weird. It was overly dramatized and not entirely accurate. It really didn’t sit well with me.

Friends all over the country saw the story, and here’s what they got from the coverage:

I was biking behind the patient when he crashed.

I had my own tools. Even the patient himself was told I used my own blade to make the incision.

The true story is what I just told you: A half-dozen emergency medical personnel were already there when I arrived. It was a combination of all of us – together – in the right place at the right time.

A month later, the patient and his family drove to the city where I live to take me out to lunch. It was emotional. There were plenty of tears. His wife and daughter were expressing a lot of gratitude and had some gifts for me. I was able to get his version of the story and learned some details. He had facial trauma in the past with some reconstruction. I realized that perhaps those anatomical changes affected my ability to do the intubation.

I hope to never again have to do this outside of the hospital. But I suppose I’m more prepared than ever now. I’ve reviewed my cricothyrotomy technique many times since then.

I was trained as a family doctor and did clinic and hospital medicine for several years. It was only in 2020 that I transitioned to doing emergency medicine work in a rural hospital. So, 2 years earlier, I’m not sure I would’ve been able to do what I did that day. To me, it was almost symbolic of the transition of my practice to emergency medicine.

I’m still in touch with the patient. We’ve talked about biking together. That hasn’t happened yet, but it may very well happen someday.

Jesse Coenen, MD, is an emergency medicine physician at Hayward Area Memorial Hospital in Hayward, Wisc.

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

It started as a mountain biking excursion with two friends. When we drove into the trailhead parking lot, we saw several emergency vehicles. Then a helicopter passed overhead. As we got on our bikes, a police officer told us there’d been an accident out on the trail and to be careful because emergency personnel were going to be bringing in the patient. So we started the ride cautiously, ready to yield to emergency medical services.

Half a mile down the trail, we encountered another police officer. He asked if we would be willing to go back to get an oxygen tank from the ambulance and carry it out to the scene. The three of us turned around, went back to the parking lot and were able to snag a tank of oxygen. We put it in a backpack and biked out again.

We found the scene about a mile down the trail. An adult male was lying on his back in the dirt after a crash. His eyes were closed and he wasn’t moving except for occasional breaths. Six emergency medical personnel huddled around him, one assisting breaths with a bag mask. I didn’t introduce myself initially. I just listened to hear what was happening.

They were debating the dose of medication to give him in order to intubate. I knew the answer to that question, so I introduced myself. They were happy to have somebody else to assist.

They already had an IV in place and quite a lot of supplies. They administered the meds and the paramedic attempted to intubate through the mouth. Within a few seconds, she pulled the intubating blade out and said, “I’m not going to be able to get this. His tongue is too big.”

I took the blade myself and kneeled at the head of the victim. I made three attempts at intubating, and each time couldn’t view the landmarks. I wasn’t sure if his tongue was too large or if there was some traumatic injury. To make it more difficult, a lot of secretions clogged the airway. The paramedics had a portable suction, which was somewhat functional, but I still couldn’t visualize the landmarks.

I started asking about alternative methods of establishing an airway. They had an i-gel, which is a supraglottic device that goes into the back of the mouth. So, we placed it. But when we attached the bag, air still wasn’t getting into the lungs.

We removed it and put the bag mask back on. Now I was worried. We were having difficulty keeping his oxygen above 90%. I examined the chest and abdomen again. I was wondering if perhaps he was having some gastric distention, which can result from prolonged bagging, but that didn’t seem to be the case.

Bagging became progressively more difficult, and the oxygen slowly trended down through the 80s. Then the 70s. Heart rate dropped below 60 beats per minute. The trajectory was obvious.

That’s when I asked if they had the tools for a surgical airway.

No one thought the question was crazy. In fact, they pulled out a scalpel from an equipment bag.

But now I had to actually do it. I knelt next to the patient, trying to palpate the front of the neck to identify the correct location to cut. I had difficulty finding the appropriate landmarks there as well. Frustrating.

I glanced at the monitor. O₂ was now in the 60s. Later the paramedic told me the heart rate was down to 30.

One of the medics looked me in the eye and said, “We’ve got to do something. The time is now.” That helped me snap out of it and act. I made my large vertical incision on the front of the victim’s neck, which of course resulted in quite a bit of bleeding.

My two friends, who were watching, later told me this was the moment the intensity of the scene really increased (it was already pretty intense for me, thanks).

Next, I made the horizontal stab incision. Then I probed with my finger, but it seems the incision hadn’t reached the trachea. I had to make the stab much deeper than I would’ve thought.

And then air bubbled out through the blood. A paramedic was ready with the ET tube in hand and she put it through the incision. We attached the bag. We had air movement into the lungs, and within minutes the oxygen came up.

Not long after, the flight paramedics from the helicopter showed up, having jogged a mile through the woods. They seemed rather surprised to find a patient with a cricothyrotomy. We filled them in on the situation. Now we had to get the patient out of the woods (literally and figuratively).

The emergency responders had a really great transport device: A litter with one big wheel underneath in the middle so we could roll the patient down the mountain bike trail over rocks relatively safely. One person’s job was to hold the tube as we went since we didn’t have suture to hold it in place.

We got back to the parking lot and loaded him into the ambulance, which drove another mile to the helicopter, which then had to take him a hundred miles to the hospital.

To be honest, I thought the prognosis was poor. I suspected he had an intercranial bleed slowly squeezing his brain (that later turned out to not be the case). Even though we had established an airway, it took us so long to get him to the ambulance.

The director of the local EMS called me that evening and said the patient had made it to the hospital. I had never been a part of anything with this intensity. I definitely lost sleep over it. Partly just from the uncertainty of not knowing what the outcome would be. But also second-guessing if I had done everything that I could have.

The story doesn’t quite end there, however.

A week later, a friend of the patient called me. He had recovered well and was going to be discharged from the hospital. He’d chosen to share the story with the media, and the local TV station was going to interview him. They had asked if I would agree to be interviewed.

After the local news story ran, it was kind of a media blitz. In came numerous media requests. But honestly, the portrayal of the story made me feel really weird. It was overly dramatized and not entirely accurate. It really didn’t sit well with me.

Friends all over the country saw the story, and here’s what they got from the coverage:

I was biking behind the patient when he crashed.

I had my own tools. Even the patient himself was told I used my own blade to make the incision.

The true story is what I just told you: A half-dozen emergency medical personnel were already there when I arrived. It was a combination of all of us – together – in the right place at the right time.

A month later, the patient and his family drove to the city where I live to take me out to lunch. It was emotional. There were plenty of tears. His wife and daughter were expressing a lot of gratitude and had some gifts for me. I was able to get his version of the story and learned some details. He had facial trauma in the past with some reconstruction. I realized that perhaps those anatomical changes affected my ability to do the intubation.

I hope to never again have to do this outside of the hospital. But I suppose I’m more prepared than ever now. I’ve reviewed my cricothyrotomy technique many times since then.

I was trained as a family doctor and did clinic and hospital medicine for several years. It was only in 2020 that I transitioned to doing emergency medicine work in a rural hospital. So, 2 years earlier, I’m not sure I would’ve been able to do what I did that day. To me, it was almost symbolic of the transition of my practice to emergency medicine.

I’m still in touch with the patient. We’ve talked about biking together. That hasn’t happened yet, but it may very well happen someday.

Jesse Coenen, MD, is an emergency medicine physician at Hayward Area Memorial Hospital in Hayward, Wisc.

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

It started as a mountain biking excursion with two friends. When we drove into the trailhead parking lot, we saw several emergency vehicles. Then a helicopter passed overhead. As we got on our bikes, a police officer told us there’d been an accident out on the trail and to be careful because emergency personnel were going to be bringing in the patient. So we started the ride cautiously, ready to yield to emergency medical services.

Half a mile down the trail, we encountered another police officer. He asked if we would be willing to go back to get an oxygen tank from the ambulance and carry it out to the scene. The three of us turned around, went back to the parking lot and were able to snag a tank of oxygen. We put it in a backpack and biked out again.

We found the scene about a mile down the trail. An adult male was lying on his back in the dirt after a crash. His eyes were closed and he wasn’t moving except for occasional breaths. Six emergency medical personnel huddled around him, one assisting breaths with a bag mask. I didn’t introduce myself initially. I just listened to hear what was happening.

They were debating the dose of medication to give him in order to intubate. I knew the answer to that question, so I introduced myself. They were happy to have somebody else to assist.

They already had an IV in place and quite a lot of supplies. They administered the meds and the paramedic attempted to intubate through the mouth. Within a few seconds, she pulled the intubating blade out and said, “I’m not going to be able to get this. His tongue is too big.”

I took the blade myself and kneeled at the head of the victim. I made three attempts at intubating, and each time couldn’t view the landmarks. I wasn’t sure if his tongue was too large or if there was some traumatic injury. To make it more difficult, a lot of secretions clogged the airway. The paramedics had a portable suction, which was somewhat functional, but I still couldn’t visualize the landmarks.

I started asking about alternative methods of establishing an airway. They had an i-gel, which is a supraglottic device that goes into the back of the mouth. So, we placed it. But when we attached the bag, air still wasn’t getting into the lungs.

We removed it and put the bag mask back on. Now I was worried. We were having difficulty keeping his oxygen above 90%. I examined the chest and abdomen again. I was wondering if perhaps he was having some gastric distention, which can result from prolonged bagging, but that didn’t seem to be the case.

Bagging became progressively more difficult, and the oxygen slowly trended down through the 80s. Then the 70s. Heart rate dropped below 60 beats per minute. The trajectory was obvious.

That’s when I asked if they had the tools for a surgical airway.

No one thought the question was crazy. In fact, they pulled out a scalpel from an equipment bag.

But now I had to actually do it. I knelt next to the patient, trying to palpate the front of the neck to identify the correct location to cut. I had difficulty finding the appropriate landmarks there as well. Frustrating.

I glanced at the monitor. O₂ was now in the 60s. Later the paramedic told me the heart rate was down to 30.

One of the medics looked me in the eye and said, “We’ve got to do something. The time is now.” That helped me snap out of it and act. I made my large vertical incision on the front of the victim’s neck, which of course resulted in quite a bit of bleeding.

My two friends, who were watching, later told me this was the moment the intensity of the scene really increased (it was already pretty intense for me, thanks).

Next, I made the horizontal stab incision. Then I probed with my finger, but it seems the incision hadn’t reached the trachea. I had to make the stab much deeper than I would’ve thought.

And then air bubbled out through the blood. A paramedic was ready with the ET tube in hand and she put it through the incision. We attached the bag. We had air movement into the lungs, and within minutes the oxygen came up.

Not long after, the flight paramedics from the helicopter showed up, having jogged a mile through the woods. They seemed rather surprised to find a patient with a cricothyrotomy. We filled them in on the situation. Now we had to get the patient out of the woods (literally and figuratively).

The emergency responders had a really great transport device: A litter with one big wheel underneath in the middle so we could roll the patient down the mountain bike trail over rocks relatively safely. One person’s job was to hold the tube as we went since we didn’t have suture to hold it in place.

We got back to the parking lot and loaded him into the ambulance, which drove another mile to the helicopter, which then had to take him a hundred miles to the hospital.

To be honest, I thought the prognosis was poor. I suspected he had an intercranial bleed slowly squeezing his brain (that later turned out to not be the case). Even though we had established an airway, it took us so long to get him to the ambulance.

The director of the local EMS called me that evening and said the patient had made it to the hospital. I had never been a part of anything with this intensity. I definitely lost sleep over it. Partly just from the uncertainty of not knowing what the outcome would be. But also second-guessing if I had done everything that I could have.

The story doesn’t quite end there, however.

A week later, a friend of the patient called me. He had recovered well and was going to be discharged from the hospital. He’d chosen to share the story with the media, and the local TV station was going to interview him. They had asked if I would agree to be interviewed.

After the local news story ran, it was kind of a media blitz. In came numerous media requests. But honestly, the portrayal of the story made me feel really weird. It was overly dramatized and not entirely accurate. It really didn’t sit well with me.

Friends all over the country saw the story, and here’s what they got from the coverage:

I was biking behind the patient when he crashed.

I had my own tools. Even the patient himself was told I used my own blade to make the incision.

The true story is what I just told you: A half-dozen emergency medical personnel were already there when I arrived. It was a combination of all of us – together – in the right place at the right time.

A month later, the patient and his family drove to the city where I live to take me out to lunch. It was emotional. There were plenty of tears. His wife and daughter were expressing a lot of gratitude and had some gifts for me. I was able to get his version of the story and learned some details. He had facial trauma in the past with some reconstruction. I realized that perhaps those anatomical changes affected my ability to do the intubation.

I hope to never again have to do this outside of the hospital. But I suppose I’m more prepared than ever now. I’ve reviewed my cricothyrotomy technique many times since then.

I was trained as a family doctor and did clinic and hospital medicine for several years. It was only in 2020 that I transitioned to doing emergency medicine work in a rural hospital. So, 2 years earlier, I’m not sure I would’ve been able to do what I did that day. To me, it was almost symbolic of the transition of my practice to emergency medicine.

I’m still in touch with the patient. We’ve talked about biking together. That hasn’t happened yet, but it may very well happen someday.

Jesse Coenen, MD, is an emergency medicine physician at Hayward Area Memorial Hospital in Hayward, Wisc.

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

Interventional cardiologist Jeffrey Tauth, MD, of Hot Springs, Ark., has agreed to pay $900,000 to resolve allegations that he submitted claims to Medicare for inserting medically unnecessary cardiac stents, in violation of the False Claims Act.

As part of the settlement, Dr. Tauth will enter into an integrity agreement with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, according to a news release from Henry Leventis, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee.

“Health care fraud is a top priority of this office. We will aggressively pursue all those who are involved in fraud against government programs,” Mr. Leventis said.

Dr. Tauth formerly treated patients at National Park Medical Center (NPMC) in Hot Springs. The alleged false claims were submitted from September 2013 through August 2019.

The settlement with Dr. Tauth, aged 60, follows a November 2019 voluntary disclosure of the alleged false claims by Brentwood, Tenn.–based Lifepoint Health, which acquired NPMC and Hot Springs Cardiology Associates in November 2018.

NPMC and Hot Springs Cardiology entered into a settlement in October 2020 for the alleged violations and agreed to pay roughly $14.6 million, which includes over $9 million in restitution, according to the news release.

NPMC CEO Scott Smith said NPMC is “committed to maintaining high standards of integrity, legal compliance, and quality care for our patients. We regularly monitor our processes, procedures, and reporting and actively self-report concerns to regulators to ensure we are upholding these standards across our organization.”

“We are proud that our hospital took the appropriate steps to promptly self-report and finalize a settlement with the government for a swift resolution more than 2 years ago,” Mr. Smith said.

Dr. Tauth, however, maintains that the allegations made by NPMC are false.

“I am pleased to have reached a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice regarding allegations brought to them by my former employer, National Park Medical Center,” he said in a statement.

“The settlement agreement specifically states that it is not ‘an admission of liability’ by me, and I remain steadfast in my position that the allegations made by my former employer are false and without merit,” Dr. Tauth added.

He further stated that he has “chosen to enter into the settlement agreement because the legal process initiated by National Park’s allegations has been emotionally and financially damaging to me and my family in the extreme, and a settlement puts an end to the delays, uncertainties, inconveniences, and expenses of protracted litigation. Settlement is in the best interests of my family, my patients, and my medical practice.”

Dr. Tauth said he is “extremely grateful for the support I have received from my patients, medical staff, colleagues, friends, and family during this difficult time, and I look forward to providing high-quality cardiac care in the greater Hot Springs community for many years to come.”

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

Interventional cardiologist Jeffrey Tauth, MD, of Hot Springs, Ark., has agreed to pay $900,000 to resolve allegations that he submitted claims to Medicare for inserting medically unnecessary cardiac stents, in violation of the False Claims Act.

As part of the settlement, Dr. Tauth will enter into an integrity agreement with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, according to a news release from Henry Leventis, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee.

“Health care fraud is a top priority of this office. We will aggressively pursue all those who are involved in fraud against government programs,” Mr. Leventis said.

Dr. Tauth formerly treated patients at National Park Medical Center (NPMC) in Hot Springs. The alleged false claims were submitted from September 2013 through August 2019.

The settlement with Dr. Tauth, aged 60, follows a November 2019 voluntary disclosure of the alleged false claims by Brentwood, Tenn.–based Lifepoint Health, which acquired NPMC and Hot Springs Cardiology Associates in November 2018.

NPMC and Hot Springs Cardiology entered into a settlement in October 2020 for the alleged violations and agreed to pay roughly $14.6 million, which includes over $9 million in restitution, according to the news release.

NPMC CEO Scott Smith said NPMC is “committed to maintaining high standards of integrity, legal compliance, and quality care for our patients. We regularly monitor our processes, procedures, and reporting and actively self-report concerns to regulators to ensure we are upholding these standards across our organization.”

“We are proud that our hospital took the appropriate steps to promptly self-report and finalize a settlement with the government for a swift resolution more than 2 years ago,” Mr. Smith said.

Dr. Tauth, however, maintains that the allegations made by NPMC are false.

“I am pleased to have reached a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice regarding allegations brought to them by my former employer, National Park Medical Center,” he said in a statement.

“The settlement agreement specifically states that it is not ‘an admission of liability’ by me, and I remain steadfast in my position that the allegations made by my former employer are false and without merit,” Dr. Tauth added.

He further stated that he has “chosen to enter into the settlement agreement because the legal process initiated by National Park’s allegations has been emotionally and financially damaging to me and my family in the extreme, and a settlement puts an end to the delays, uncertainties, inconveniences, and expenses of protracted litigation. Settlement is in the best interests of my family, my patients, and my medical practice.”

Dr. Tauth said he is “extremely grateful for the support I have received from my patients, medical staff, colleagues, friends, and family during this difficult time, and I look forward to providing high-quality cardiac care in the greater Hot Springs community for many years to come.”

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

Interventional cardiologist Jeffrey Tauth, MD, of Hot Springs, Ark., has agreed to pay $900,000 to resolve allegations that he submitted claims to Medicare for inserting medically unnecessary cardiac stents, in violation of the False Claims Act.

As part of the settlement, Dr. Tauth will enter into an integrity agreement with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, according to a news release from Henry Leventis, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee.

“Health care fraud is a top priority of this office. We will aggressively pursue all those who are involved in fraud against government programs,” Mr. Leventis said.

Dr. Tauth formerly treated patients at National Park Medical Center (NPMC) in Hot Springs. The alleged false claims were submitted from September 2013 through August 2019.

The settlement with Dr. Tauth, aged 60, follows a November 2019 voluntary disclosure of the alleged false claims by Brentwood, Tenn.–based Lifepoint Health, which acquired NPMC and Hot Springs Cardiology Associates in November 2018.

NPMC and Hot Springs Cardiology entered into a settlement in October 2020 for the alleged violations and agreed to pay roughly $14.6 million, which includes over $9 million in restitution, according to the news release.

NPMC CEO Scott Smith said NPMC is “committed to maintaining high standards of integrity, legal compliance, and quality care for our patients. We regularly monitor our processes, procedures, and reporting and actively self-report concerns to regulators to ensure we are upholding these standards across our organization.”

“We are proud that our hospital took the appropriate steps to promptly self-report and finalize a settlement with the government for a swift resolution more than 2 years ago,” Mr. Smith said.

Dr. Tauth, however, maintains that the allegations made by NPMC are false.

“I am pleased to have reached a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice regarding allegations brought to them by my former employer, National Park Medical Center,” he said in a statement.

“The settlement agreement specifically states that it is not ‘an admission of liability’ by me, and I remain steadfast in my position that the allegations made by my former employer are false and without merit,” Dr. Tauth added.

He further stated that he has “chosen to enter into the settlement agreement because the legal process initiated by National Park’s allegations has been emotionally and financially damaging to me and my family in the extreme, and a settlement puts an end to the delays, uncertainties, inconveniences, and expenses of protracted litigation. Settlement is in the best interests of my family, my patients, and my medical practice.”

Dr. Tauth said he is “extremely grateful for the support I have received from my patients, medical staff, colleagues, friends, and family during this difficult time, and I look forward to providing high-quality cardiac care in the greater Hot Springs community for many years to come.”

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

Results of the REDUCE-IT trial suggested that icosapent ethyl lowers the risk for ischemic events among patients with high triglycerides despite statin use – but immediately, controversy swirled.

The prescription product (Vascepa), consisting of a “highly purified” form of the omega-3 acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), was heralded in 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:11-22) as ushering in “the dawn of a new era” in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention that “should definitely change practice going forward,” according to REDUCE-IT’s lead author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, formerly of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and now director of the Mount Sinai Heart Center in New York.

However, skeptics questioned why the results differed from most previous trials of fish oil that showed no benefit. Was it caused by the high dose of EPA: 4 g/daily versus 1 g daily in earlier trials with fish oil capsules? Was it the different formulation of purified EPA versus more common combinations of EPA plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)? Or, as suggested by Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute and others, was it caused by the negative effects of the mineral oil placebo, given the significant increases in LDL cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) seen in the control group?
 

‘Not all omega-3s created equal’

Dr. Bhatt recently said in an interview: “I think there’s confusion in the field. It’s a challenge when just one drug in a class looks good and everything else in that class looks bad. That in itself can breed some skepticism. Also, not everyone always embraces advances. Some people have other reasons to impugn datasets; for example, it could be because they are running competing trials with competing drugs.”

REDUCE-IT enrolled more than 8,000 patients at high CV risk despite statin treatment, and randomly assigned them to 2 g of EPA twice daily or the mineral oil placebo. Although the results showed a 25% reduction in the rate of CV events in the EPA group, there was also an increased risk of atrial fibrillation among those taking EPA after a median of 4.9 years follow-up.

Dr. Bhatt noted that Amarin, which manufactures Vascepa, is essentially a one-drug company, and its stock price is dependent on the product. When the trial results were released, he said, “there were people in the investor world that wanted the stock price to go up or wanted it to go down, and they were alternately hyping or disparaging the data in both cases, sometimes inappropriately and excessively, which created noise around the science.”

The fact is, he said, “not all omega-3 fatty acids are created equal. There are differences between supplements and prescription medicines, and within the prescription medicines, differences between pure EPA and the mixtures of EPA and DHA.”

Dr. Bhatt added that other trials also showed positive results. He pointed to the JELIS trial, published in 2007, which showed a 19% reduction in major adverse CV events with a 1.8-g daily EPA dose.

More recently, RESPECT-EPA was presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Heart Association. That study had methodological issues and was underpowered, but it did suggest a possible benefit of EPA in reducing CV events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease who were taking statins. “Looking at the totality of evidence, I think it’s quite clear there’s CV benefit,” Dr. Bhatt said.
 

Placebo effects?

Concerns about the mineral oil placebo cast doubt on that benefit. Table 4 of the supplement accompanying REDUCE-IT’s publication in the New England Journal of Medicine shows significant increases of non–HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and hsCRP in the control group.

Jane Armitage, MBBS, a professor of clinical trials and epidemiology, clinical trial service unit at Oxford University (England), said in an interview: “I was surprised by the backlash and at the time felt that it was unlikely that the mineral oil was the problem. But the size of benefit was still out of kilter.”

“Two further pieces of evidence have influenced my thoughts since then,” she said. One is the lack of effect of high doses of fish oils in the STRENGTH trial. STRENGTH tested 4 g of omega-3 oil containing a mixture of EPA and DHA and found no benefit in statin-treated, high-risk patients.

“The amount of EPA [was] substantially less than given in REDUCE-IT,” Armitage said, “but it seems to me that in a similar hypertriglyceridemic population, if the effect were due to the EPA, you would have seen some impact in STRENGTH – and none was seen.”

“The other piece of evidence is in a paper by Paul Ridker, MD, et al. on the changes in biomarkers during REDUCE-IT,” she said. “Several inflammatory biomarkers associated with atherosclerosis rose during the study among those allocated mineral oil, but remained largely unchanged in the EPA group. This is in contrast to what is seen with these biomarkers in other large trials, where no changes were seen in the placebo groups, and once again raises the possibility that the apparent benefits of EPA may be related to hazard from the mineral oil.”
 

Still room for benefit?

Based largely on the results of REDUCE-IT, Vascepa is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an adjunctive therapy to lower the risk for CV events among adults with elevated triglyceride levels (≥ 150 mg/dL). Patients must also have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional CV risk factors and are advised to continue physical activity and maintain a healthy diet.

Dr. Nissen, the principal author of the STRENGTH trial, said in an interview, “REDUCE-IT is an outlier. Other trials of omega-3 fatty acids, some of them very large, showed no benefits, and a meta-analysis of nearly 78,000 patients showed no beneficial effects. In this context,” he said, “the large ‘benefit’ observed in REDUCE-IT doesn’t make any sense.”

Dr. Nissen noted that a secondary analysis of STRENGTH further showed that higher plasma EPA levels did not reduce CV outcomes. He also highlighted the elevated risk of atrial fibrillation with EPA. “We need to see another study comparing EPA to a neutral comparator such as corn oil, which had no significant effect on lipid or inflammatory biomarkers in STRENGTH,” he said. “Without such a trial, the results of REDUCE-IT cannot be accepted as definitive.”

Dr. Ridker, the lead author of the REDUCE-IT substudy that found biomarker changes with the mineral oil placebo, said in an interview: “Is it possible that EPA is an outstanding drug? Absolutely, and I continue to think it useful for our very high-risk, secondary-prevention patients when we are running out of options.”

“But,” said Dr. Ridker, who is a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s, “the reality ... is that ongoing uncertainties need resolution.” Like Dr. Nissen, he thinks the best way to resolve these uncertainties is through a second trial using a fully neutral comparator. “I am hopeful that the U.S. National Institutes of Health will see fit to undertake such an endeavor, perhaps with support from industry partners.”

Although Dr. Armitage is no longer in clinical practice, when asked how she might use EPA, she said it might be reasonable for patients who meet the prescribing criteria and remain high risk after all other risk factors have been addressed. She added that, although EPA is approved in the United Kingdom, she doesn’t think it is being widely prescribed.

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor in the Sections of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research at Baylor College of Medicine who has published articles about REDUCE-IT and on the eligibility and cost of EPA in the Veterans Affairs system, said in an interview: “In my personal opinion, clinicians [should] first optimize diet and lifestyle and work on secondary causes, as they play a very big role in hypertriglyceridemia.” He also recommended optimizing LDL-C levels because of “consistent data showing that LDL [cholesterol] control leads to significant reduction in atherosclerotic CVD events.”

“Once these two steps are taken and triglycerides still remain elevated,” he said, “then adding EPA in patients with established atherosclerotic CVD or those with diabetes plus other CV risk factors may be a reasonable option to further lower residual atherosclerotic CVD risk.”
 

Clinical inertia?

Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that, despite the benefit of EPA in the context of REDUCE-IT, “a few issues stand in the way of prescribing, particularly in the U.S.”

Vascepa’s manufacturer Amarin lost a patent challenge in the United States, enabling the relatively early introduction of multiple generics. “They’ve lost interest in the U.S. because there are three generics.”

“The sad truth is, if there isn’t a drug rep saying, ‘hey, look at this new data,’ there’s clinical inertia,” said Dr. Bhatt. He believes that the lack of marketing will hurt awareness among physicians and “ultimately hurt patients because they won’t get the drug.”

Cost is also an issue, Dr. Bhatt affirmed. Vascepa has significant out-of-pocket costs for many patients, as do some of the generics. Currently, the branded product costs about $300 per month without insurance, according to drugs.com; prices for generics vary widely, running anywhere from $82 to $200 or more.

Despite these challenges, he noted that many guidelines around the world have already changed to reflect the data, including the American Diabetes Association and the U.S. National Lipid Association.

Will there be another trial of EPA with a neutral placebo? Dr. Bhatt believes it’s not going to happen. “The company that funded REDUCE-IT is struggling just to stay alive, and another investigator-funded trial like RESPECT EPA would probably be underpowered and not move the needle much.”

Dr. Virani agreed that while it would be best to test EPA against a fully inert placebo, “whether there is enough appetite to fund such a large trial remains a big question.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Bhatt said, “EPA is not for everybody, but for the high-risk patients who meet the stringent inclusion criteria of REDUCE-IT, I think clinicians should at least consider use of EPA in a way consistent with the U.S. FDA label, the Canadian label, and the label in parts of Europe where the drug is being introduced.”

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

Results of the REDUCE-IT trial suggested that icosapent ethyl lowers the risk for ischemic events among patients with high triglycerides despite statin use – but immediately, controversy swirled.

The prescription product (Vascepa), consisting of a “highly purified” form of the omega-3 acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), was heralded in 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:11-22) as ushering in “the dawn of a new era” in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention that “should definitely change practice going forward,” according to REDUCE-IT’s lead author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, formerly of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and now director of the Mount Sinai Heart Center in New York.

However, skeptics questioned why the results differed from most previous trials of fish oil that showed no benefit. Was it caused by the high dose of EPA: 4 g/daily versus 1 g daily in earlier trials with fish oil capsules? Was it the different formulation of purified EPA versus more common combinations of EPA plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)? Or, as suggested by Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute and others, was it caused by the negative effects of the mineral oil placebo, given the significant increases in LDL cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) seen in the control group?
 

‘Not all omega-3s created equal’

Dr. Bhatt recently said in an interview: “I think there’s confusion in the field. It’s a challenge when just one drug in a class looks good and everything else in that class looks bad. That in itself can breed some skepticism. Also, not everyone always embraces advances. Some people have other reasons to impugn datasets; for example, it could be because they are running competing trials with competing drugs.”

REDUCE-IT enrolled more than 8,000 patients at high CV risk despite statin treatment, and randomly assigned them to 2 g of EPA twice daily or the mineral oil placebo. Although the results showed a 25% reduction in the rate of CV events in the EPA group, there was also an increased risk of atrial fibrillation among those taking EPA after a median of 4.9 years follow-up.

Dr. Bhatt noted that Amarin, which manufactures Vascepa, is essentially a one-drug company, and its stock price is dependent on the product. When the trial results were released, he said, “there were people in the investor world that wanted the stock price to go up or wanted it to go down, and they were alternately hyping or disparaging the data in both cases, sometimes inappropriately and excessively, which created noise around the science.”

The fact is, he said, “not all omega-3 fatty acids are created equal. There are differences between supplements and prescription medicines, and within the prescription medicines, differences between pure EPA and the mixtures of EPA and DHA.”

Dr. Bhatt added that other trials also showed positive results. He pointed to the JELIS trial, published in 2007, which showed a 19% reduction in major adverse CV events with a 1.8-g daily EPA dose.

More recently, RESPECT-EPA was presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Heart Association. That study had methodological issues and was underpowered, but it did suggest a possible benefit of EPA in reducing CV events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease who were taking statins. “Looking at the totality of evidence, I think it’s quite clear there’s CV benefit,” Dr. Bhatt said.
 

Placebo effects?

Concerns about the mineral oil placebo cast doubt on that benefit. Table 4 of the supplement accompanying REDUCE-IT’s publication in the New England Journal of Medicine shows significant increases of non–HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and hsCRP in the control group.

Jane Armitage, MBBS, a professor of clinical trials and epidemiology, clinical trial service unit at Oxford University (England), said in an interview: “I was surprised by the backlash and at the time felt that it was unlikely that the mineral oil was the problem. But the size of benefit was still out of kilter.”

“Two further pieces of evidence have influenced my thoughts since then,” she said. One is the lack of effect of high doses of fish oils in the STRENGTH trial. STRENGTH tested 4 g of omega-3 oil containing a mixture of EPA and DHA and found no benefit in statin-treated, high-risk patients.

“The amount of EPA [was] substantially less than given in REDUCE-IT,” Armitage said, “but it seems to me that in a similar hypertriglyceridemic population, if the effect were due to the EPA, you would have seen some impact in STRENGTH – and none was seen.”

“The other piece of evidence is in a paper by Paul Ridker, MD, et al. on the changes in biomarkers during REDUCE-IT,” she said. “Several inflammatory biomarkers associated with atherosclerosis rose during the study among those allocated mineral oil, but remained largely unchanged in the EPA group. This is in contrast to what is seen with these biomarkers in other large trials, where no changes were seen in the placebo groups, and once again raises the possibility that the apparent benefits of EPA may be related to hazard from the mineral oil.”
 

Still room for benefit?

Based largely on the results of REDUCE-IT, Vascepa is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an adjunctive therapy to lower the risk for CV events among adults with elevated triglyceride levels (≥ 150 mg/dL). Patients must also have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional CV risk factors and are advised to continue physical activity and maintain a healthy diet.

Dr. Nissen, the principal author of the STRENGTH trial, said in an interview, “REDUCE-IT is an outlier. Other trials of omega-3 fatty acids, some of them very large, showed no benefits, and a meta-analysis of nearly 78,000 patients showed no beneficial effects. In this context,” he said, “the large ‘benefit’ observed in REDUCE-IT doesn’t make any sense.”

Dr. Nissen noted that a secondary analysis of STRENGTH further showed that higher plasma EPA levels did not reduce CV outcomes. He also highlighted the elevated risk of atrial fibrillation with EPA. “We need to see another study comparing EPA to a neutral comparator such as corn oil, which had no significant effect on lipid or inflammatory biomarkers in STRENGTH,” he said. “Without such a trial, the results of REDUCE-IT cannot be accepted as definitive.”

Dr. Ridker, the lead author of the REDUCE-IT substudy that found biomarker changes with the mineral oil placebo, said in an interview: “Is it possible that EPA is an outstanding drug? Absolutely, and I continue to think it useful for our very high-risk, secondary-prevention patients when we are running out of options.”

“But,” said Dr. Ridker, who is a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s, “the reality ... is that ongoing uncertainties need resolution.” Like Dr. Nissen, he thinks the best way to resolve these uncertainties is through a second trial using a fully neutral comparator. “I am hopeful that the U.S. National Institutes of Health will see fit to undertake such an endeavor, perhaps with support from industry partners.”

Although Dr. Armitage is no longer in clinical practice, when asked how she might use EPA, she said it might be reasonable for patients who meet the prescribing criteria and remain high risk after all other risk factors have been addressed. She added that, although EPA is approved in the United Kingdom, she doesn’t think it is being widely prescribed.

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor in the Sections of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research at Baylor College of Medicine who has published articles about REDUCE-IT and on the eligibility and cost of EPA in the Veterans Affairs system, said in an interview: “In my personal opinion, clinicians [should] first optimize diet and lifestyle and work on secondary causes, as they play a very big role in hypertriglyceridemia.” He also recommended optimizing LDL-C levels because of “consistent data showing that LDL [cholesterol] control leads to significant reduction in atherosclerotic CVD events.”

“Once these two steps are taken and triglycerides still remain elevated,” he said, “then adding EPA in patients with established atherosclerotic CVD or those with diabetes plus other CV risk factors may be a reasonable option to further lower residual atherosclerotic CVD risk.”
 

Clinical inertia?

Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that, despite the benefit of EPA in the context of REDUCE-IT, “a few issues stand in the way of prescribing, particularly in the U.S.”

Vascepa’s manufacturer Amarin lost a patent challenge in the United States, enabling the relatively early introduction of multiple generics. “They’ve lost interest in the U.S. because there are three generics.”

“The sad truth is, if there isn’t a drug rep saying, ‘hey, look at this new data,’ there’s clinical inertia,” said Dr. Bhatt. He believes that the lack of marketing will hurt awareness among physicians and “ultimately hurt patients because they won’t get the drug.”

Cost is also an issue, Dr. Bhatt affirmed. Vascepa has significant out-of-pocket costs for many patients, as do some of the generics. Currently, the branded product costs about $300 per month without insurance, according to drugs.com; prices for generics vary widely, running anywhere from $82 to $200 or more.

Despite these challenges, he noted that many guidelines around the world have already changed to reflect the data, including the American Diabetes Association and the U.S. National Lipid Association.

Will there be another trial of EPA with a neutral placebo? Dr. Bhatt believes it’s not going to happen. “The company that funded REDUCE-IT is struggling just to stay alive, and another investigator-funded trial like RESPECT EPA would probably be underpowered and not move the needle much.”

Dr. Virani agreed that while it would be best to test EPA against a fully inert placebo, “whether there is enough appetite to fund such a large trial remains a big question.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Bhatt said, “EPA is not for everybody, but for the high-risk patients who meet the stringent inclusion criteria of REDUCE-IT, I think clinicians should at least consider use of EPA in a way consistent with the U.S. FDA label, the Canadian label, and the label in parts of Europe where the drug is being introduced.”

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

Results of the REDUCE-IT trial suggested that icosapent ethyl lowers the risk for ischemic events among patients with high triglycerides despite statin use – but immediately, controversy swirled.

The prescription product (Vascepa), consisting of a “highly purified” form of the omega-3 acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), was heralded in 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:11-22) as ushering in “the dawn of a new era” in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention that “should definitely change practice going forward,” according to REDUCE-IT’s lead author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, formerly of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and now director of the Mount Sinai Heart Center in New York.

However, skeptics questioned why the results differed from most previous trials of fish oil that showed no benefit. Was it caused by the high dose of EPA: 4 g/daily versus 1 g daily in earlier trials with fish oil capsules? Was it the different formulation of purified EPA versus more common combinations of EPA plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)? Or, as suggested by Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute and others, was it caused by the negative effects of the mineral oil placebo, given the significant increases in LDL cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) seen in the control group?
 

‘Not all omega-3s created equal’

Dr. Bhatt recently said in an interview: “I think there’s confusion in the field. It’s a challenge when just one drug in a class looks good and everything else in that class looks bad. That in itself can breed some skepticism. Also, not everyone always embraces advances. Some people have other reasons to impugn datasets; for example, it could be because they are running competing trials with competing drugs.”

REDUCE-IT enrolled more than 8,000 patients at high CV risk despite statin treatment, and randomly assigned them to 2 g of EPA twice daily or the mineral oil placebo. Although the results showed a 25% reduction in the rate of CV events in the EPA group, there was also an increased risk of atrial fibrillation among those taking EPA after a median of 4.9 years follow-up.

Dr. Bhatt noted that Amarin, which manufactures Vascepa, is essentially a one-drug company, and its stock price is dependent on the product. When the trial results were released, he said, “there were people in the investor world that wanted the stock price to go up or wanted it to go down, and they were alternately hyping or disparaging the data in both cases, sometimes inappropriately and excessively, which created noise around the science.”

The fact is, he said, “not all omega-3 fatty acids are created equal. There are differences between supplements and prescription medicines, and within the prescription medicines, differences between pure EPA and the mixtures of EPA and DHA.”

Dr. Bhatt added that other trials also showed positive results. He pointed to the JELIS trial, published in 2007, which showed a 19% reduction in major adverse CV events with a 1.8-g daily EPA dose.

More recently, RESPECT-EPA was presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Heart Association. That study had methodological issues and was underpowered, but it did suggest a possible benefit of EPA in reducing CV events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease who were taking statins. “Looking at the totality of evidence, I think it’s quite clear there’s CV benefit,” Dr. Bhatt said.
 

Placebo effects?

Concerns about the mineral oil placebo cast doubt on that benefit. Table 4 of the supplement accompanying REDUCE-IT’s publication in the New England Journal of Medicine shows significant increases of non–HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and hsCRP in the control group.

Jane Armitage, MBBS, a professor of clinical trials and epidemiology, clinical trial service unit at Oxford University (England), said in an interview: “I was surprised by the backlash and at the time felt that it was unlikely that the mineral oil was the problem. But the size of benefit was still out of kilter.”

“Two further pieces of evidence have influenced my thoughts since then,” she said. One is the lack of effect of high doses of fish oils in the STRENGTH trial. STRENGTH tested 4 g of omega-3 oil containing a mixture of EPA and DHA and found no benefit in statin-treated, high-risk patients.

“The amount of EPA [was] substantially less than given in REDUCE-IT,” Armitage said, “but it seems to me that in a similar hypertriglyceridemic population, if the effect were due to the EPA, you would have seen some impact in STRENGTH – and none was seen.”

“The other piece of evidence is in a paper by Paul Ridker, MD, et al. on the changes in biomarkers during REDUCE-IT,” she said. “Several inflammatory biomarkers associated with atherosclerosis rose during the study among those allocated mineral oil, but remained largely unchanged in the EPA group. This is in contrast to what is seen with these biomarkers in other large trials, where no changes were seen in the placebo groups, and once again raises the possibility that the apparent benefits of EPA may be related to hazard from the mineral oil.”
 

Still room for benefit?

Based largely on the results of REDUCE-IT, Vascepa is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an adjunctive therapy to lower the risk for CV events among adults with elevated triglyceride levels (≥ 150 mg/dL). Patients must also have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional CV risk factors and are advised to continue physical activity and maintain a healthy diet.

Dr. Nissen, the principal author of the STRENGTH trial, said in an interview, “REDUCE-IT is an outlier. Other trials of omega-3 fatty acids, some of them very large, showed no benefits, and a meta-analysis of nearly 78,000 patients showed no beneficial effects. In this context,” he said, “the large ‘benefit’ observed in REDUCE-IT doesn’t make any sense.”

Dr. Nissen noted that a secondary analysis of STRENGTH further showed that higher plasma EPA levels did not reduce CV outcomes. He also highlighted the elevated risk of atrial fibrillation with EPA. “We need to see another study comparing EPA to a neutral comparator such as corn oil, which had no significant effect on lipid or inflammatory biomarkers in STRENGTH,” he said. “Without such a trial, the results of REDUCE-IT cannot be accepted as definitive.”

Dr. Ridker, the lead author of the REDUCE-IT substudy that found biomarker changes with the mineral oil placebo, said in an interview: “Is it possible that EPA is an outstanding drug? Absolutely, and I continue to think it useful for our very high-risk, secondary-prevention patients when we are running out of options.”

“But,” said Dr. Ridker, who is a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s, “the reality ... is that ongoing uncertainties need resolution.” Like Dr. Nissen, he thinks the best way to resolve these uncertainties is through a second trial using a fully neutral comparator. “I am hopeful that the U.S. National Institutes of Health will see fit to undertake such an endeavor, perhaps with support from industry partners.”

Although Dr. Armitage is no longer in clinical practice, when asked how she might use EPA, she said it might be reasonable for patients who meet the prescribing criteria and remain high risk after all other risk factors have been addressed. She added that, although EPA is approved in the United Kingdom, she doesn’t think it is being widely prescribed.

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor in the Sections of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research at Baylor College of Medicine who has published articles about REDUCE-IT and on the eligibility and cost of EPA in the Veterans Affairs system, said in an interview: “In my personal opinion, clinicians [should] first optimize diet and lifestyle and work on secondary causes, as they play a very big role in hypertriglyceridemia.” He also recommended optimizing LDL-C levels because of “consistent data showing that LDL [cholesterol] control leads to significant reduction in atherosclerotic CVD events.”

“Once these two steps are taken and triglycerides still remain elevated,” he said, “then adding EPA in patients with established atherosclerotic CVD or those with diabetes plus other CV risk factors may be a reasonable option to further lower residual atherosclerotic CVD risk.”
 

Clinical inertia?

Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that, despite the benefit of EPA in the context of REDUCE-IT, “a few issues stand in the way of prescribing, particularly in the U.S.”

Vascepa’s manufacturer Amarin lost a patent challenge in the United States, enabling the relatively early introduction of multiple generics. “They’ve lost interest in the U.S. because there are three generics.”

“The sad truth is, if there isn’t a drug rep saying, ‘hey, look at this new data,’ there’s clinical inertia,” said Dr. Bhatt. He believes that the lack of marketing will hurt awareness among physicians and “ultimately hurt patients because they won’t get the drug.”

Cost is also an issue, Dr. Bhatt affirmed. Vascepa has significant out-of-pocket costs for many patients, as do some of the generics. Currently, the branded product costs about $300 per month without insurance, according to drugs.com; prices for generics vary widely, running anywhere from $82 to $200 or more.

Despite these challenges, he noted that many guidelines around the world have already changed to reflect the data, including the American Diabetes Association and the U.S. National Lipid Association.

Will there be another trial of EPA with a neutral placebo? Dr. Bhatt believes it’s not going to happen. “The company that funded REDUCE-IT is struggling just to stay alive, and another investigator-funded trial like RESPECT EPA would probably be underpowered and not move the needle much.”

Dr. Virani agreed that while it would be best to test EPA against a fully inert placebo, “whether there is enough appetite to fund such a large trial remains a big question.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Bhatt said, “EPA is not for everybody, but for the high-risk patients who meet the stringent inclusion criteria of REDUCE-IT, I think clinicians should at least consider use of EPA in a way consistent with the U.S. FDA label, the Canadian label, and the label in parts of Europe where the drug is being introduced.”

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

Among people with type 2 diabetes who self-reported regularly using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events as well as all-cause death was significantly increased in a study of more than 19,000 people with type 2 diabetes in a prospective U.K. database.

During median follow-up of about 11 years, regular use of a PPI by people with type 2 diabetes was significantly linked with a 27% relative increase in the incidence of coronary artery disease, compared with nonuse of a PPI, after full adjustment for potential confounding variables.

The results also show PPI use was significantly linked after full adjustment with a 34% relative increase in MI, a 35% relative increase in heart failure, and a 30% relative increase in all-cause death, say a team of Chinese researchers in a recent report in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

PPIs are a medication class widely used in both over-the-counter and prescription formulations to reduce acid production in the stomach and to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease and other acid-related disorders. The PPI class includes such widely used agents as esomeprazole (Nexium), lansoprazole (Prevacid), and omeprazole (Prilosec).

The analyses in this report, which used data collected in the UK Biobank, are “rigorous,” and the findings of “a modest elevation of CVD risk are consistent with a growing number of observational studies in populations with and without diabetes,” commented Mary R. Rooney, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who focuses on diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
 

Prior observational reports

For example, a report from a prospective, observational study of more than 4300 U.S. residents published in 2021 that Dr. Rooney coauthored documented that cumulative PPI exposure for more than 5 years was significantly linked with a twofold increase in the rate of CVD events, compared with people who did not use a PPI. (This analysis did not examine a possible effect of diabetes status.)

And in a separate prospective, observational study of more than 1,000 Australians with type 2 diabetes, initiation of PPI treatment was significantly linked with a 3.6-fold increased incidence of CVD events, compared with PPI nonuse.

However, Dr. Rooney cautioned that the role of PPI use in raising CVD events “is still an unresolved question. It is too soon to tell if PPI use in people with diabetes should trigger additional caution.” Findings are needed from prospective, randomized trials to determine more definitively whether PPIs play a causal role in the incidence of CVD events, she said in an interview.

U.S. practice often results in unwarranted prolongation of PPI treatment, said the authors of an editorial that accompanied the 2021 report by Dr. Rooney and coauthors.
 

Long-term PPI use threatens harm

“The practice of initiating stress ulcer prophylaxis [by administering a PPI] in critical care is common,” wrote the authors of the 2021 editorial, Nitin Malik, MD, and William S. Weintraub, MD. “Although it is data driven and well intentioned, the possibility of causing harm – if it is continued on a long-term basis after resolution of the acute illness – is palpable.”

The new analyses using UK Biobank data included 19,229 adults with type 2 diabetes and no preexisting coronary artery disease, MI, heart failure, or stroke. The cohort included 15,954 people (83%) who did not report using a PPI and 3,275 who currently used PPIs regularly. Study limitations include self-report as the only verification of PPI use and lack of information on type of PPI, dose size, or use duration.

The findings remained consistent in several sensitivity analyses, including a propensity score–matched analysis and after further adjustment for use of histamine₂ receptor antagonists, a drug class with indications similar to those for PPIs.

The authors of the report speculated that mechanisms that might link PPI use and increased CVD and mortality risk could include changes to the gut microbiota and possible interactions between PPIs and antiplatelet agents.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Rooney disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among people with type 2 diabetes who self-reported regularly using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events as well as all-cause death was significantly increased in a study of more than 19,000 people with type 2 diabetes in a prospective U.K. database.

During median follow-up of about 11 years, regular use of a PPI by people with type 2 diabetes was significantly linked with a 27% relative increase in the incidence of coronary artery disease, compared with nonuse of a PPI, after full adjustment for potential confounding variables.

The results also show PPI use was significantly linked after full adjustment with a 34% relative increase in MI, a 35% relative increase in heart failure, and a 30% relative increase in all-cause death, say a team of Chinese researchers in a recent report in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

PPIs are a medication class widely used in both over-the-counter and prescription formulations to reduce acid production in the stomach and to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease and other acid-related disorders. The PPI class includes such widely used agents as esomeprazole (Nexium), lansoprazole (Prevacid), and omeprazole (Prilosec).

The analyses in this report, which used data collected in the UK Biobank, are “rigorous,” and the findings of “a modest elevation of CVD risk are consistent with a growing number of observational studies in populations with and without diabetes,” commented Mary R. Rooney, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who focuses on diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
 

Prior observational reports

For example, a report from a prospective, observational study of more than 4300 U.S. residents published in 2021 that Dr. Rooney coauthored documented that cumulative PPI exposure for more than 5 years was significantly linked with a twofold increase in the rate of CVD events, compared with people who did not use a PPI. (This analysis did not examine a possible effect of diabetes status.)

And in a separate prospective, observational study of more than 1,000 Australians with type 2 diabetes, initiation of PPI treatment was significantly linked with a 3.6-fold increased incidence of CVD events, compared with PPI nonuse.

However, Dr. Rooney cautioned that the role of PPI use in raising CVD events “is still an unresolved question. It is too soon to tell if PPI use in people with diabetes should trigger additional caution.” Findings are needed from prospective, randomized trials to determine more definitively whether PPIs play a causal role in the incidence of CVD events, she said in an interview.

U.S. practice often results in unwarranted prolongation of PPI treatment, said the authors of an editorial that accompanied the 2021 report by Dr. Rooney and coauthors.
 

Long-term PPI use threatens harm

“The practice of initiating stress ulcer prophylaxis [by administering a PPI] in critical care is common,” wrote the authors of the 2021 editorial, Nitin Malik, MD, and William S. Weintraub, MD. “Although it is data driven and well intentioned, the possibility of causing harm – if it is continued on a long-term basis after resolution of the acute illness – is palpable.”

The new analyses using UK Biobank data included 19,229 adults with type 2 diabetes and no preexisting coronary artery disease, MI, heart failure, or stroke. The cohort included 15,954 people (83%) who did not report using a PPI and 3,275 who currently used PPIs regularly. Study limitations include self-report as the only verification of PPI use and lack of information on type of PPI, dose size, or use duration.

The findings remained consistent in several sensitivity analyses, including a propensity score–matched analysis and after further adjustment for use of histamine₂ receptor antagonists, a drug class with indications similar to those for PPIs.

The authors of the report speculated that mechanisms that might link PPI use and increased CVD and mortality risk could include changes to the gut microbiota and possible interactions between PPIs and antiplatelet agents.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Rooney disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among people with type 2 diabetes who self-reported regularly using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events as well as all-cause death was significantly increased in a study of more than 19,000 people with type 2 diabetes in a prospective U.K. database.

During median follow-up of about 11 years, regular use of a PPI by people with type 2 diabetes was significantly linked with a 27% relative increase in the incidence of coronary artery disease, compared with nonuse of a PPI, after full adjustment for potential confounding variables.

The results also show PPI use was significantly linked after full adjustment with a 34% relative increase in MI, a 35% relative increase in heart failure, and a 30% relative increase in all-cause death, say a team of Chinese researchers in a recent report in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

PPIs are a medication class widely used in both over-the-counter and prescription formulations to reduce acid production in the stomach and to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease and other acid-related disorders. The PPI class includes such widely used agents as esomeprazole (Nexium), lansoprazole (Prevacid), and omeprazole (Prilosec).

The analyses in this report, which used data collected in the UK Biobank, are “rigorous,” and the findings of “a modest elevation of CVD risk are consistent with a growing number of observational studies in populations with and without diabetes,” commented Mary R. Rooney, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who focuses on diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
 

Prior observational reports

For example, a report from a prospective, observational study of more than 4300 U.S. residents published in 2021 that Dr. Rooney coauthored documented that cumulative PPI exposure for more than 5 years was significantly linked with a twofold increase in the rate of CVD events, compared with people who did not use a PPI. (This analysis did not examine a possible effect of diabetes status.)

And in a separate prospective, observational study of more than 1,000 Australians with type 2 diabetes, initiation of PPI treatment was significantly linked with a 3.6-fold increased incidence of CVD events, compared with PPI nonuse.

However, Dr. Rooney cautioned that the role of PPI use in raising CVD events “is still an unresolved question. It is too soon to tell if PPI use in people with diabetes should trigger additional caution.” Findings are needed from prospective, randomized trials to determine more definitively whether PPIs play a causal role in the incidence of CVD events, she said in an interview.

U.S. practice often results in unwarranted prolongation of PPI treatment, said the authors of an editorial that accompanied the 2021 report by Dr. Rooney and coauthors.
 

Long-term PPI use threatens harm

“The practice of initiating stress ulcer prophylaxis [by administering a PPI] in critical care is common,” wrote the authors of the 2021 editorial, Nitin Malik, MD, and William S. Weintraub, MD. “Although it is data driven and well intentioned, the possibility of causing harm – if it is continued on a long-term basis after resolution of the acute illness – is palpable.”

The new analyses using UK Biobank data included 19,229 adults with type 2 diabetes and no preexisting coronary artery disease, MI, heart failure, or stroke. The cohort included 15,954 people (83%) who did not report using a PPI and 3,275 who currently used PPIs regularly. Study limitations include self-report as the only verification of PPI use and lack of information on type of PPI, dose size, or use duration.

The findings remained consistent in several sensitivity analyses, including a propensity score–matched analysis and after further adjustment for use of histamine₂ receptor antagonists, a drug class with indications similar to those for PPIs.

The authors of the report speculated that mechanisms that might link PPI use and increased CVD and mortality risk could include changes to the gut microbiota and possible interactions between PPIs and antiplatelet agents.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Rooney disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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