Heart Failure

Beta-blockers have long been recommended to prevent aortic dissection associated with Marfan syndrome despite limited evidence, but a new analysis also supports a benefit from angiotensin receptors blockers (ARBs) and further suggests that beta-blockers and ARBs exert independent effects.

For the endpoint of inhibition of growth of the aortic root, “there is no evidence of any interaction between the effects of ARBs with beta-blockers, and so we think that the treatment effects are likely to be additive,” reported Alex Pitcher, BMBCh, DPhil, Oxford (England) University Hospitals, NHS Trust.

Based on these data, Dr. Pitcher recommended considering ARBs and beta-blockers together soon after the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome. This includes young children.

“We think that medical treatments can delay surgery and dissection substantially if given for a number of years,” he added.

In this study, undertaken by the Marfan Treatment Trialists (MTT) collaboration, data were available from 1,442 Marfan syndrome patients participating in seven treatment trials. The primary outcome was aortic root enlargement, a predictor of life-threatening aortic dissection and rupture. Rather than a meta-analysis of the pooled data, the meta-analysis was conducted with individual patient data that involved collaboration with the original trialists.

Four of the studies with 746 patients compared ARBs to placebo or a control medication. A second group of three trials with 766 patients compared ARBs to beta-blockers.

From the two sets of data, a calculation of the effect of beta-blockers was indirectly estimated.
 

ARBs slow annualized aortic growth rate significantly

In the first set of trials, the analysis showed a significantly slower annualized aortic root growth rate for those treated with ARBs relative to controls (0.07 vs. 0.13), producing a statistically significant absolute difference (0.7%; P = .01) in favor of the ARB.

“In other words, the rate of growth was nearly double in the control arm,” Dr. Pitcher said.

In the three trials comparing ARBs to beta-blockers, the annualized growth rate among those taking an ARB was similar (0.8%) to that seen in the previous set of controlled trials. This rate of annualized growth was not significantly different from the 0.11% annualized rate of growth in patients receiving beta-blockers. When an analysis of the impact of beta-blockers was conducted by indirectly evaluating the change in growth relative to controls, the estimated impact was an annualized growth rate of 0.9% (P = .042).

A second set of data provided the basis for suggesting that the effects of beta ARBs and beta-blockers are independent and potentially additive.

“We were able to look at subgroups of patients in the ARB trials that were broken down by whether they were or were not on beta-blockers at baseline, and so by doing able to estimate independent effects,” Dr. Pitcher said. The lack of any interactions led Dr. Pitcher to conclude that benefits are likely additive.

Of patients genotyped in the ARB studies, more than 80% had the FBN1 pathogenic variant of Marfan syndrome. When the data were analyzed by subgroups, including age or blood pressure, there were no differences in treatment effect except for those with the FBN1 mutation in whom the benefit of ARB therapy was greater relative to those without.

As FBN1 is one of the most common genetic signatures of Marfan syndrome, the “greater effect of ARBs in this group makes it more plausible that the effect is real,” Dr. Pitcher said.
 

Results could change treatment guidelines

Current guidelines recommend beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome prior to a dilatation size of 4.5 to 5 cm when surgery is indicated, according to Dr. Pitcher, but he said these data might change guidelines. While reinforcing the benefit of beta-blockers, this analysis suggests ARBs should also be considered, possibly in combination with beta-blockers.

“What I hope this meta-analysis does is add substantially to the certainty with which physicians can discuss treatments with patients.”

As for the mechanism, it is reasonable to speculate the antihypertensive effect of both medications is relevant, but each has plausible independent activities that might contribute to modifying aortic growth, according to Roland R.J. van Kimmenade, MD, PhD, a specialist in aortic diseases and heart failure at Raboud University Medical Center, Nijmegan, the Netherlands.

Citing several studies, he suggested that the benefit of beta-blockers could also stem from their ability to reduce heart rate and aortic stiffness while ARBs are likely to inhibit the interaction between the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and TGF-beta pathway. Each of these might participate in risk of aortic root growth, according to Dr. van Kimmenade, who was invited by ESC to discuss this study.

On the basis of these data as well as past studies, he agreed that the combination of beta-blockers and ARBs might not just be additive but “even a little bit synergistic.”

While Dr. Pitcher suggested that the evidence supports starting both beta-blockers and ARBs soon after the diagnosis, Dr. van Kimmenade said, “I don’t like using beta-blockers in young patients, but ARBs are now shown to be an excellent alternative.”

Ultimately, “the prescription pencil will not replace the surgical knife” in a disease that is likely to eventually require surgery to prevent life-threatening events, according to Dr. van Kimmenade, but he agreed that these data provide more certainty about the value of beta-blockers and ARBs for slowing progression.

Dr. Pitcher reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. van Kimmenade has financial relationships with Bayer and Novartis.

Beta-blockers have long been recommended to prevent aortic dissection associated with Marfan syndrome despite limited evidence, but a new analysis also supports a benefit from angiotensin receptors blockers (ARBs) and further suggests that beta-blockers and ARBs exert independent effects.

For the endpoint of inhibition of growth of the aortic root, “there is no evidence of any interaction between the effects of ARBs with beta-blockers, and so we think that the treatment effects are likely to be additive,” reported Alex Pitcher, BMBCh, DPhil, Oxford (England) University Hospitals, NHS Trust.

Based on these data, Dr. Pitcher recommended considering ARBs and beta-blockers together soon after the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome. This includes young children.

“We think that medical treatments can delay surgery and dissection substantially if given for a number of years,” he added.

In this study, undertaken by the Marfan Treatment Trialists (MTT) collaboration, data were available from 1,442 Marfan syndrome patients participating in seven treatment trials. The primary outcome was aortic root enlargement, a predictor of life-threatening aortic dissection and rupture. Rather than a meta-analysis of the pooled data, the meta-analysis was conducted with individual patient data that involved collaboration with the original trialists.

Four of the studies with 746 patients compared ARBs to placebo or a control medication. A second group of three trials with 766 patients compared ARBs to beta-blockers.

From the two sets of data, a calculation of the effect of beta-blockers was indirectly estimated.
 

ARBs slow annualized aortic growth rate significantly

In the first set of trials, the analysis showed a significantly slower annualized aortic root growth rate for those treated with ARBs relative to controls (0.07 vs. 0.13), producing a statistically significant absolute difference (0.7%; P = .01) in favor of the ARB.

“In other words, the rate of growth was nearly double in the control arm,” Dr. Pitcher said.

In the three trials comparing ARBs to beta-blockers, the annualized growth rate among those taking an ARB was similar (0.8%) to that seen in the previous set of controlled trials. This rate of annualized growth was not significantly different from the 0.11% annualized rate of growth in patients receiving beta-blockers. When an analysis of the impact of beta-blockers was conducted by indirectly evaluating the change in growth relative to controls, the estimated impact was an annualized growth rate of 0.9% (P = .042).

A second set of data provided the basis for suggesting that the effects of beta ARBs and beta-blockers are independent and potentially additive.

“We were able to look at subgroups of patients in the ARB trials that were broken down by whether they were or were not on beta-blockers at baseline, and so by doing able to estimate independent effects,” Dr. Pitcher said. The lack of any interactions led Dr. Pitcher to conclude that benefits are likely additive.

Of patients genotyped in the ARB studies, more than 80% had the FBN1 pathogenic variant of Marfan syndrome. When the data were analyzed by subgroups, including age or blood pressure, there were no differences in treatment effect except for those with the FBN1 mutation in whom the benefit of ARB therapy was greater relative to those without.

As FBN1 is one of the most common genetic signatures of Marfan syndrome, the “greater effect of ARBs in this group makes it more plausible that the effect is real,” Dr. Pitcher said.
 

Results could change treatment guidelines

Current guidelines recommend beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome prior to a dilatation size of 4.5 to 5 cm when surgery is indicated, according to Dr. Pitcher, but he said these data might change guidelines. While reinforcing the benefit of beta-blockers, this analysis suggests ARBs should also be considered, possibly in combination with beta-blockers.

“What I hope this meta-analysis does is add substantially to the certainty with which physicians can discuss treatments with patients.”

As for the mechanism, it is reasonable to speculate the antihypertensive effect of both medications is relevant, but each has plausible independent activities that might contribute to modifying aortic growth, according to Roland R.J. van Kimmenade, MD, PhD, a specialist in aortic diseases and heart failure at Raboud University Medical Center, Nijmegan, the Netherlands.

Citing several studies, he suggested that the benefit of beta-blockers could also stem from their ability to reduce heart rate and aortic stiffness while ARBs are likely to inhibit the interaction between the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and TGF-beta pathway. Each of these might participate in risk of aortic root growth, according to Dr. van Kimmenade, who was invited by ESC to discuss this study.

On the basis of these data as well as past studies, he agreed that the combination of beta-blockers and ARBs might not just be additive but “even a little bit synergistic.”

While Dr. Pitcher suggested that the evidence supports starting both beta-blockers and ARBs soon after the diagnosis, Dr. van Kimmenade said, “I don’t like using beta-blockers in young patients, but ARBs are now shown to be an excellent alternative.”

Ultimately, “the prescription pencil will not replace the surgical knife” in a disease that is likely to eventually require surgery to prevent life-threatening events, according to Dr. van Kimmenade, but he agreed that these data provide more certainty about the value of beta-blockers and ARBs for slowing progression.

Dr. Pitcher reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. van Kimmenade has financial relationships with Bayer and Novartis.

Beta-blockers have long been recommended to prevent aortic dissection associated with Marfan syndrome despite limited evidence, but a new analysis also supports a benefit from angiotensin receptors blockers (ARBs) and further suggests that beta-blockers and ARBs exert independent effects.

For the endpoint of inhibition of growth of the aortic root, “there is no evidence of any interaction between the effects of ARBs with beta-blockers, and so we think that the treatment effects are likely to be additive,” reported Alex Pitcher, BMBCh, DPhil, Oxford (England) University Hospitals, NHS Trust.

Based on these data, Dr. Pitcher recommended considering ARBs and beta-blockers together soon after the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome. This includes young children.

“We think that medical treatments can delay surgery and dissection substantially if given for a number of years,” he added.

In this study, undertaken by the Marfan Treatment Trialists (MTT) collaboration, data were available from 1,442 Marfan syndrome patients participating in seven treatment trials. The primary outcome was aortic root enlargement, a predictor of life-threatening aortic dissection and rupture. Rather than a meta-analysis of the pooled data, the meta-analysis was conducted with individual patient data that involved collaboration with the original trialists.

Four of the studies with 746 patients compared ARBs to placebo or a control medication. A second group of three trials with 766 patients compared ARBs to beta-blockers.

From the two sets of data, a calculation of the effect of beta-blockers was indirectly estimated.
 

ARBs slow annualized aortic growth rate significantly

In the first set of trials, the analysis showed a significantly slower annualized aortic root growth rate for those treated with ARBs relative to controls (0.07 vs. 0.13), producing a statistically significant absolute difference (0.7%; P = .01) in favor of the ARB.

“In other words, the rate of growth was nearly double in the control arm,” Dr. Pitcher said.

In the three trials comparing ARBs to beta-blockers, the annualized growth rate among those taking an ARB was similar (0.8%) to that seen in the previous set of controlled trials. This rate of annualized growth was not significantly different from the 0.11% annualized rate of growth in patients receiving beta-blockers. When an analysis of the impact of beta-blockers was conducted by indirectly evaluating the change in growth relative to controls, the estimated impact was an annualized growth rate of 0.9% (P = .042).

A second set of data provided the basis for suggesting that the effects of beta ARBs and beta-blockers are independent and potentially additive.

“We were able to look at subgroups of patients in the ARB trials that were broken down by whether they were or were not on beta-blockers at baseline, and so by doing able to estimate independent effects,” Dr. Pitcher said. The lack of any interactions led Dr. Pitcher to conclude that benefits are likely additive.

Of patients genotyped in the ARB studies, more than 80% had the FBN1 pathogenic variant of Marfan syndrome. When the data were analyzed by subgroups, including age or blood pressure, there were no differences in treatment effect except for those with the FBN1 mutation in whom the benefit of ARB therapy was greater relative to those without.

As FBN1 is one of the most common genetic signatures of Marfan syndrome, the “greater effect of ARBs in this group makes it more plausible that the effect is real,” Dr. Pitcher said.
 

Results could change treatment guidelines

Current guidelines recommend beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome prior to a dilatation size of 4.5 to 5 cm when surgery is indicated, according to Dr. Pitcher, but he said these data might change guidelines. While reinforcing the benefit of beta-blockers, this analysis suggests ARBs should also be considered, possibly in combination with beta-blockers.

“What I hope this meta-analysis does is add substantially to the certainty with which physicians can discuss treatments with patients.”

As for the mechanism, it is reasonable to speculate the antihypertensive effect of both medications is relevant, but each has plausible independent activities that might contribute to modifying aortic growth, according to Roland R.J. van Kimmenade, MD, PhD, a specialist in aortic diseases and heart failure at Raboud University Medical Center, Nijmegan, the Netherlands.

Citing several studies, he suggested that the benefit of beta-blockers could also stem from their ability to reduce heart rate and aortic stiffness while ARBs are likely to inhibit the interaction between the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and TGF-beta pathway. Each of these might participate in risk of aortic root growth, according to Dr. van Kimmenade, who was invited by ESC to discuss this study.

On the basis of these data as well as past studies, he agreed that the combination of beta-blockers and ARBs might not just be additive but “even a little bit synergistic.”

While Dr. Pitcher suggested that the evidence supports starting both beta-blockers and ARBs soon after the diagnosis, Dr. van Kimmenade said, “I don’t like using beta-blockers in young patients, but ARBs are now shown to be an excellent alternative.”

Ultimately, “the prescription pencil will not replace the surgical knife” in a disease that is likely to eventually require surgery to prevent life-threatening events, according to Dr. van Kimmenade, but he agreed that these data provide more certainty about the value of beta-blockers and ARBs for slowing progression.

Dr. Pitcher reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. van Kimmenade has financial relationships with Bayer and Novartis.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

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

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

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

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

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

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Contrary to expectations, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) reduced the risk for ischemic stroke and death, compared with the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban, (Xarelto, Janssen) in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation (AFib), in the INVICTUS trial.

Patients receiving a VKA, typically warfarin, had a 25% lower risk for the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular or unknown causes outcome – than receiving rivaroxaban (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.41).

This difference was driven primarily by a significant reduction in the risk for death in the VKA group, and without a significant increase in major bleeding, reported Ganesan Karthikeyan, MD, from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.

“VKA should remain the standard of care for patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation,” he concluded in a hotline session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The study, simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the first randomized controlled trial to assess anticoagulant therapy in patients with rheumatic heart disease and AFib.

“Who could have possibly guessed these results? Certainly not me,” said invited discussant Renato D. Lopes, MD, MHS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C. “To me, this is one more classical example of why we need to do randomized trials, since they are the only reliable way to determine treatment effects and drive clinical practice.”

Evidence gap

Rheumatic heart disease affects over 40 million people, mainly living in low- and low- to middle-income countries. About 20% of symptomatic patients have AF and an elevated stroke risk, but previous AFib trials excluded these patients, Dr. Karthikeyan noted.

INVICTUS was led by the Population Health Research Institute in Hamilton, Ont., and enrolled 4,565 patients from 24 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America who had rheumatic heart disease, AFib or atrial flutter, and an increased stroke risk caused by any of the following: CHA2DS2VASc score of 2 or more, moderate to severe mitral stenosis (valve area ≤ 2.0 cm²), left atrial spontaneous echo contrast, or left atrial thrombus.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban, 20 mg once daily (15 mg/d if creatinine clearance was 15-49 mL/min), or a VKA titrated to an international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0-3.0.

Warfarin was used in 79%-85% of patients assigned to VKA, with the percentage varying between visits. The INR was in therapeutic range in 33.2% of patients at baseline, 65.1% at 3 years, and 64.1% at 4 years.

During an average follow-up of 3.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in 446 patients in the VKA group (6.49% per year) and 560 patients in the rivaroxaban group (8.21% per year). The restricted mean survival time for the primary outcome was 1,675 vs. 1,599 days, respectively (difference, –76 days; 95% CI, –121 to –31 days; P for superiority < .001).

The rate of stroke or systemic embolism was similar between the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (75 vs. 94 events), although ischemic strokes were significantly lower with VKA (48 vs. 74 events).
 

No easy explanation

Deaths were significantly lower with VKA than rivaroxaban, at 442 versus 552 (restricted mean survival time for death, 1,608 vs. 1,587 days; difference, −72 days; 95% CI, –117 to –28 days).

“This reduction is not easily explained,” Dr. Karthikeyan acknowledged. “We cannot explain this reduction by the reduction in stroke that we saw because the number of deaths that are prevented by VKA are far larger than the number of strokes that are prevented. Moreover, the number of deaths were mainly heart failure or sudden deaths.”

Numbers of patients with major bleeding were also similar in the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (56 vs. 40 patients; P = .18), although numbers with fatal bleeding were lower with rivaroxaban (15 vs. 4, respectively).

By design, there were more physician interactions for monthly monitoring of INR in the VKA group, “but we do not believe such a large reduction can be explained entirely by increased health care contact,” he said. Moreover, there was no significant between-group difference in heart failure medications or hospitalizations or the need for valve replacement.

Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the rivaroxaban group permanently discontinued the study drug versus just 6% in the VKA group.

Importantly, the mortality benefit emerged much later than in other trials and coincided with the time when the INR became therapeutic at about 3 years, Dr. Karthikeyan said. But it is unknown whether this is because of the INR or an unrelated effect.
 

More physician contact

Following the presentation, session cochair C. Michael Gibson, MD, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Harvard Medical School, Boston, questioned the 23% discontinuation rate for rivaroxaban. “Is this really a superiority of warfarin or is this superiority of having someone come in and see their physician for a lot of checks on their INR?”

In response, Dr. Karthikeyan said that permanent discontinuation rates were about 20%-25% in shorter-duration direct oral anticoagulant trials, such as RELY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOLE, and exceeded 30% in ENGAGE-AF with 2.8 years’ follow-up.

“So, this is not new,” he said, adding that 31.4% of rivaroxaban patients did so for valve replacement surgery and subsequently received nonstudy VKA.

Dr. Lopes said it is important to keep in mind that INVICTUS enrolled a “very different population” that was younger (mean age, 50.5 years), was much more often female (72.3%), and had fewer comorbidities than patients with AFib who did not have rheumatic heart disease in the pivotal trials.

“It will be interesting to see the treatment effect according to mitral stenosis severity, since we had about 30% with mild mitral stenosis and additionally 18% of patients without mitral stenosis,” he added.

Co–principal investigator Stuart J. Connolly, MD, from the Population Health Research Institute, said physician contacts may be a factor but that the mortality difference was clear, highly significant, and sufficiently powered.

“What’s amazing is that what we’re seeing here is something that hasn’t been previously described with VKA or warfarin, which is that it reduces mortality,” he said in an interview.

Rivaroxaban has never been shown to reduce mortality in any particular condition, and a meta-analysis of other novel oral anticoagulants shows only a small reduction in mortality, caused almost completely by less intracranial hemorrhage than warfarin, he added. “So, we don’t think this is a problem with rivaroxaban. In some ways, rivaroxaban is an innocent bystander to a trial of warfarin in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation.”

Dr. Connolly said more work is needed to explain the findings and analyses are planned to see which patients are at highest risk for death as well as looking at the relationship between INR control and outcomes.

“We need to do more research on what it is about VKA that could explain this,” he said. “Is it affecting the myocardium in some way, is it preventing fibrosis, is there some off target effect, not on the anticoagulation system, that could explain this?”

Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and past president of the American College of Cardiology, said “INVICTUS is an incredibly important study that needed to be done.”

“The results – though disappointing and surprising in some ways – I don’t think we can explain them away and change what we are doing right now,” she said in an interview.

Although warfarin is a cheap drug, Dr. Poppas said, it would be tremendously helpful to have an alternative treatment for these patients. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand the observed mortality advantage and low bleeding rates but that trials of other novel anticoagulants are also needed.

“But I’m not sure that will happen,” she added. “It’s unlikely to be industry sponsored, so it would be a very expensive lift with a low likelihood of success.”

In an editorial accompanying the paper, Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, University of Liverpool (England), pointed out that observational data show similar or even higher risks for major bleeding with rivaroxaban than with warfarin. “To improve outcomes in these patients, we therefore need to look beyond anticoagulation alone or beyond a type of anticoagulation drug per se. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate.”

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Bayer. Dr. Karthikeyan and Dr. Poppas reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Contrary to expectations, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) reduced the risk for ischemic stroke and death, compared with the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban, (Xarelto, Janssen) in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation (AFib), in the INVICTUS trial.

Patients receiving a VKA, typically warfarin, had a 25% lower risk for the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular or unknown causes outcome – than receiving rivaroxaban (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.41).

This difference was driven primarily by a significant reduction in the risk for death in the VKA group, and without a significant increase in major bleeding, reported Ganesan Karthikeyan, MD, from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.

“VKA should remain the standard of care for patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation,” he concluded in a hotline session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The study, simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the first randomized controlled trial to assess anticoagulant therapy in patients with rheumatic heart disease and AFib.

“Who could have possibly guessed these results? Certainly not me,” said invited discussant Renato D. Lopes, MD, MHS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C. “To me, this is one more classical example of why we need to do randomized trials, since they are the only reliable way to determine treatment effects and drive clinical practice.”

Evidence gap

Rheumatic heart disease affects over 40 million people, mainly living in low- and low- to middle-income countries. About 20% of symptomatic patients have AF and an elevated stroke risk, but previous AFib trials excluded these patients, Dr. Karthikeyan noted.

INVICTUS was led by the Population Health Research Institute in Hamilton, Ont., and enrolled 4,565 patients from 24 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America who had rheumatic heart disease, AFib or atrial flutter, and an increased stroke risk caused by any of the following: CHA2DS2VASc score of 2 or more, moderate to severe mitral stenosis (valve area ≤ 2.0 cm²), left atrial spontaneous echo contrast, or left atrial thrombus.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban, 20 mg once daily (15 mg/d if creatinine clearance was 15-49 mL/min), or a VKA titrated to an international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0-3.0.

Warfarin was used in 79%-85% of patients assigned to VKA, with the percentage varying between visits. The INR was in therapeutic range in 33.2% of patients at baseline, 65.1% at 3 years, and 64.1% at 4 years.

During an average follow-up of 3.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in 446 patients in the VKA group (6.49% per year) and 560 patients in the rivaroxaban group (8.21% per year). The restricted mean survival time for the primary outcome was 1,675 vs. 1,599 days, respectively (difference, –76 days; 95% CI, –121 to –31 days; P for superiority < .001).

The rate of stroke or systemic embolism was similar between the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (75 vs. 94 events), although ischemic strokes were significantly lower with VKA (48 vs. 74 events).
 

No easy explanation

Deaths were significantly lower with VKA than rivaroxaban, at 442 versus 552 (restricted mean survival time for death, 1,608 vs. 1,587 days; difference, −72 days; 95% CI, –117 to –28 days).

“This reduction is not easily explained,” Dr. Karthikeyan acknowledged. “We cannot explain this reduction by the reduction in stroke that we saw because the number of deaths that are prevented by VKA are far larger than the number of strokes that are prevented. Moreover, the number of deaths were mainly heart failure or sudden deaths.”

Numbers of patients with major bleeding were also similar in the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (56 vs. 40 patients; P = .18), although numbers with fatal bleeding were lower with rivaroxaban (15 vs. 4, respectively).

By design, there were more physician interactions for monthly monitoring of INR in the VKA group, “but we do not believe such a large reduction can be explained entirely by increased health care contact,” he said. Moreover, there was no significant between-group difference in heart failure medications or hospitalizations or the need for valve replacement.

Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the rivaroxaban group permanently discontinued the study drug versus just 6% in the VKA group.

Importantly, the mortality benefit emerged much later than in other trials and coincided with the time when the INR became therapeutic at about 3 years, Dr. Karthikeyan said. But it is unknown whether this is because of the INR or an unrelated effect.
 

More physician contact

Following the presentation, session cochair C. Michael Gibson, MD, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Harvard Medical School, Boston, questioned the 23% discontinuation rate for rivaroxaban. “Is this really a superiority of warfarin or is this superiority of having someone come in and see their physician for a lot of checks on their INR?”

In response, Dr. Karthikeyan said that permanent discontinuation rates were about 20%-25% in shorter-duration direct oral anticoagulant trials, such as RELY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOLE, and exceeded 30% in ENGAGE-AF with 2.8 years’ follow-up.

“So, this is not new,” he said, adding that 31.4% of rivaroxaban patients did so for valve replacement surgery and subsequently received nonstudy VKA.

Dr. Lopes said it is important to keep in mind that INVICTUS enrolled a “very different population” that was younger (mean age, 50.5 years), was much more often female (72.3%), and had fewer comorbidities than patients with AFib who did not have rheumatic heart disease in the pivotal trials.

“It will be interesting to see the treatment effect according to mitral stenosis severity, since we had about 30% with mild mitral stenosis and additionally 18% of patients without mitral stenosis,” he added.

Co–principal investigator Stuart J. Connolly, MD, from the Population Health Research Institute, said physician contacts may be a factor but that the mortality difference was clear, highly significant, and sufficiently powered.

“What’s amazing is that what we’re seeing here is something that hasn’t been previously described with VKA or warfarin, which is that it reduces mortality,” he said in an interview.

Rivaroxaban has never been shown to reduce mortality in any particular condition, and a meta-analysis of other novel oral anticoagulants shows only a small reduction in mortality, caused almost completely by less intracranial hemorrhage than warfarin, he added. “So, we don’t think this is a problem with rivaroxaban. In some ways, rivaroxaban is an innocent bystander to a trial of warfarin in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation.”

Dr. Connolly said more work is needed to explain the findings and analyses are planned to see which patients are at highest risk for death as well as looking at the relationship between INR control and outcomes.

“We need to do more research on what it is about VKA that could explain this,” he said. “Is it affecting the myocardium in some way, is it preventing fibrosis, is there some off target effect, not on the anticoagulation system, that could explain this?”

Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and past president of the American College of Cardiology, said “INVICTUS is an incredibly important study that needed to be done.”

“The results – though disappointing and surprising in some ways – I don’t think we can explain them away and change what we are doing right now,” she said in an interview.

Although warfarin is a cheap drug, Dr. Poppas said, it would be tremendously helpful to have an alternative treatment for these patients. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand the observed mortality advantage and low bleeding rates but that trials of other novel anticoagulants are also needed.

“But I’m not sure that will happen,” she added. “It’s unlikely to be industry sponsored, so it would be a very expensive lift with a low likelihood of success.”

In an editorial accompanying the paper, Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, University of Liverpool (England), pointed out that observational data show similar or even higher risks for major bleeding with rivaroxaban than with warfarin. “To improve outcomes in these patients, we therefore need to look beyond anticoagulation alone or beyond a type of anticoagulation drug per se. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate.”

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Bayer. Dr. Karthikeyan and Dr. Poppas reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Contrary to expectations, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) reduced the risk for ischemic stroke and death, compared with the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban, (Xarelto, Janssen) in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation (AFib), in the INVICTUS trial.

Patients receiving a VKA, typically warfarin, had a 25% lower risk for the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular or unknown causes outcome – than receiving rivaroxaban (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.41).

This difference was driven primarily by a significant reduction in the risk for death in the VKA group, and without a significant increase in major bleeding, reported Ganesan Karthikeyan, MD, from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.

“VKA should remain the standard of care for patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation,” he concluded in a hotline session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The study, simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the first randomized controlled trial to assess anticoagulant therapy in patients with rheumatic heart disease and AFib.

“Who could have possibly guessed these results? Certainly not me,” said invited discussant Renato D. Lopes, MD, MHS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C. “To me, this is one more classical example of why we need to do randomized trials, since they are the only reliable way to determine treatment effects and drive clinical practice.”

Evidence gap

Rheumatic heart disease affects over 40 million people, mainly living in low- and low- to middle-income countries. About 20% of symptomatic patients have AF and an elevated stroke risk, but previous AFib trials excluded these patients, Dr. Karthikeyan noted.

INVICTUS was led by the Population Health Research Institute in Hamilton, Ont., and enrolled 4,565 patients from 24 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America who had rheumatic heart disease, AFib or atrial flutter, and an increased stroke risk caused by any of the following: CHA2DS2VASc score of 2 or more, moderate to severe mitral stenosis (valve area ≤ 2.0 cm²), left atrial spontaneous echo contrast, or left atrial thrombus.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban, 20 mg once daily (15 mg/d if creatinine clearance was 15-49 mL/min), or a VKA titrated to an international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0-3.0.

Warfarin was used in 79%-85% of patients assigned to VKA, with the percentage varying between visits. The INR was in therapeutic range in 33.2% of patients at baseline, 65.1% at 3 years, and 64.1% at 4 years.

During an average follow-up of 3.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in 446 patients in the VKA group (6.49% per year) and 560 patients in the rivaroxaban group (8.21% per year). The restricted mean survival time for the primary outcome was 1,675 vs. 1,599 days, respectively (difference, –76 days; 95% CI, –121 to –31 days; P for superiority < .001).

The rate of stroke or systemic embolism was similar between the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (75 vs. 94 events), although ischemic strokes were significantly lower with VKA (48 vs. 74 events).
 

No easy explanation

Deaths were significantly lower with VKA than rivaroxaban, at 442 versus 552 (restricted mean survival time for death, 1,608 vs. 1,587 days; difference, −72 days; 95% CI, –117 to –28 days).

“This reduction is not easily explained,” Dr. Karthikeyan acknowledged. “We cannot explain this reduction by the reduction in stroke that we saw because the number of deaths that are prevented by VKA are far larger than the number of strokes that are prevented. Moreover, the number of deaths were mainly heart failure or sudden deaths.”

Numbers of patients with major bleeding were also similar in the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (56 vs. 40 patients; P = .18), although numbers with fatal bleeding were lower with rivaroxaban (15 vs. 4, respectively).

By design, there were more physician interactions for monthly monitoring of INR in the VKA group, “but we do not believe such a large reduction can be explained entirely by increased health care contact,” he said. Moreover, there was no significant between-group difference in heart failure medications or hospitalizations or the need for valve replacement.

Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the rivaroxaban group permanently discontinued the study drug versus just 6% in the VKA group.

Importantly, the mortality benefit emerged much later than in other trials and coincided with the time when the INR became therapeutic at about 3 years, Dr. Karthikeyan said. But it is unknown whether this is because of the INR or an unrelated effect.
 

More physician contact

Following the presentation, session cochair C. Michael Gibson, MD, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Harvard Medical School, Boston, questioned the 23% discontinuation rate for rivaroxaban. “Is this really a superiority of warfarin or is this superiority of having someone come in and see their physician for a lot of checks on their INR?”

In response, Dr. Karthikeyan said that permanent discontinuation rates were about 20%-25% in shorter-duration direct oral anticoagulant trials, such as RELY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOLE, and exceeded 30% in ENGAGE-AF with 2.8 years’ follow-up.

“So, this is not new,” he said, adding that 31.4% of rivaroxaban patients did so for valve replacement surgery and subsequently received nonstudy VKA.

Dr. Lopes said it is important to keep in mind that INVICTUS enrolled a “very different population” that was younger (mean age, 50.5 years), was much more often female (72.3%), and had fewer comorbidities than patients with AFib who did not have rheumatic heart disease in the pivotal trials.

“It will be interesting to see the treatment effect according to mitral stenosis severity, since we had about 30% with mild mitral stenosis and additionally 18% of patients without mitral stenosis,” he added.

Co–principal investigator Stuart J. Connolly, MD, from the Population Health Research Institute, said physician contacts may be a factor but that the mortality difference was clear, highly significant, and sufficiently powered.

“What’s amazing is that what we’re seeing here is something that hasn’t been previously described with VKA or warfarin, which is that it reduces mortality,” he said in an interview.

Rivaroxaban has never been shown to reduce mortality in any particular condition, and a meta-analysis of other novel oral anticoagulants shows only a small reduction in mortality, caused almost completely by less intracranial hemorrhage than warfarin, he added. “So, we don’t think this is a problem with rivaroxaban. In some ways, rivaroxaban is an innocent bystander to a trial of warfarin in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation.”

Dr. Connolly said more work is needed to explain the findings and analyses are planned to see which patients are at highest risk for death as well as looking at the relationship between INR control and outcomes.

“We need to do more research on what it is about VKA that could explain this,” he said. “Is it affecting the myocardium in some way, is it preventing fibrosis, is there some off target effect, not on the anticoagulation system, that could explain this?”

Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and past president of the American College of Cardiology, said “INVICTUS is an incredibly important study that needed to be done.”

“The results – though disappointing and surprising in some ways – I don’t think we can explain them away and change what we are doing right now,” she said in an interview.

Although warfarin is a cheap drug, Dr. Poppas said, it would be tremendously helpful to have an alternative treatment for these patients. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand the observed mortality advantage and low bleeding rates but that trials of other novel anticoagulants are also needed.

“But I’m not sure that will happen,” she added. “It’s unlikely to be industry sponsored, so it would be a very expensive lift with a low likelihood of success.”

In an editorial accompanying the paper, Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, University of Liverpool (England), pointed out that observational data show similar or even higher risks for major bleeding with rivaroxaban than with warfarin. “To improve outcomes in these patients, we therefore need to look beyond anticoagulation alone or beyond a type of anticoagulation drug per se. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate.”

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Bayer. Dr. Karthikeyan and Dr. Poppas reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Patients with heart failure (HF) who received two doses of COVID mRNA vaccines were not more likely to have worsening disease, venous thromboembolism, or myocarditis within 90 days than similar unvaccinated patients, in a case-control study in Denmark.

Moreover, in the 90 days after receiving the second shot, vaccinated patients were less likely to die of any cause, compared with unvaccinated patients during a similar 90-day period.

Caroline Sindet-Pedersen, PhD, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, and colleagues presented these findings at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Major risk is not receiving vaccine

These results “confirm that the major risk for patients with HF is not receiving vaccination for COVID-19,” Marco Metra, MD, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. Metra was coauthor of an ESC guidance for the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic, published online ahead of print November 2021 in the European Heart Journal.

The guidance explains that patients with HF are at increased risk for hospitalization, need for mechanical ventilation, and death because of COVID-19, and that vaccination reduces the risk for serious illness from COVID-19, Dr. Sindet-Pedersen and colleagues explained in a press release from the ESC.

However, “concerns remain,” they added, “about the safety of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in heart failure patients, due to a perceived increased risk of cardiovascular side effects.”

The study findings suggest that “there should be no concern about cardiovascular side effects from mRNA vaccines in heart failure patients,” Dr. Sindet-Pedersen and colleagues summarized.

The results also “point to a beneficial effect of vaccination on mortality” and “indicate that patients with HF should be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters,” they added.

“There are ongoing concerns about the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in fragile patients and patients with heart failure,” said Dr. Metra, professor of cardiology and director of the Institute of Cardiology of the Civil Hospital and University of Brescia (Italy).

“These concerns are not based on evidence but just on reports of rare side effects (namely, myocarditis and pericarditis) in vaccinated people,” he added.

Dr. Metra also coauthored a position paper on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with HF from the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, which was published online October 2021 in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

“The current study,” he summarized, “shows a lower risk of mortality among patients vaccinated, compared with those not vaccinated.

“It has limitations,” he cautioned, “as it is not a prospective randomized study, but [rather] an observational one with comparison between vaccinated and not vaccinated patients with similar characteristics.

“However, it was done in a large population,” he noted, “and its results confirm that the major risk for patients with HF is not receiving vaccination for COVID-19.”

95% of patients with HF in Denmark double vaccinated

The group did not analyze the types of all-cause death in their study, Dr. Sindet-Pedersen clarified in an interview.

Other studies have shown that vaccines are associated with improved survival, she noted. For example, bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccines and the measles vaccines have been linked with a decreased risk for nonspecific mortality in children, and influenza vaccines are associated with decreased all-cause mortality in patients with HF.

The rates of vaccination in this study were much higher than those for patients with HF in the United States.

In a study of 7,094 patients with HF seen at the Mount Sinai Health System between January 2021 and January 2022, 31% of patients were fully vaccinated with two doses and 14.8% had also received a booster, as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance. However, another 9.1% of patients were only partially vaccinated with one dose, and 45% remained unvaccinated by January 2022,

In the current study, “the uptake was very high,” Dr. Sindet-Pedersen noted, that is, “95% of the prevalent heart failure patients in 2021 received a vaccine.”

“It might be that the last 5% of the patients that did not receive a vaccine were too ill [terminal] to receive the vaccine,” she speculated, “or that was due to personal reasons.”

The researchers identified 50,893 patients with HF who were double vaccinated in 2021 and they matched them with 50,893 unvaccinated patients with HF in 2019 (prepandemic), with the same age, sex, HF duration, use of HF medications, ischemic heart disease, cancer, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and admission with HF within 90 days.

Almost all patients in the vaccinated group received the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine (92%) and the rest received the Moderna mRNA vaccine (8%), in 2021.

The patients had a mean age of 74, and 64% were men. They had HF for a median of 4.1 years.

During the 90-day follow-up, 1,311 patients in the unvaccinated cohort (2.56%) and 1,113 patients in the vaccinated cohort (2.23%) died; there was a significantly lower risk for all-cause death in the vaccinated cohort versus the unvaccinated cohort (–0.33 percentage points; 95% CI, –0.52 to –0.15 percentage points).

The risk for worsening heart failure was 1.1% in each group; myocarditis and venous thromboembolism were extremely rare, and risks for these conditions were not significantly different in the two groups.

The researchers and Dr. Metra declared they have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Metra is editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Heart Failure and senior consulting editor of the European Heart Journal.

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

Patients with heart failure (HF) who received two doses of COVID mRNA vaccines were not more likely to have worsening disease, venous thromboembolism, or myocarditis within 90 days than similar unvaccinated patients, in a case-control study in Denmark.

Moreover, in the 90 days after receiving the second shot, vaccinated patients were less likely to die of any cause, compared with unvaccinated patients during a similar 90-day period.

Caroline Sindet-Pedersen, PhD, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, and colleagues presented these findings at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Major risk is not receiving vaccine

These results “confirm that the major risk for patients with HF is not receiving vaccination for COVID-19,” Marco Metra, MD, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. Metra was coauthor of an ESC guidance for the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic, published online ahead of print November 2021 in the European Heart Journal.

The guidance explains that patients with HF are at increased risk for hospitalization, need for mechanical ventilation, and death because of COVID-19, and that vaccination reduces the risk for serious illness from COVID-19, Dr. Sindet-Pedersen and colleagues explained in a press release from the ESC.

However, “concerns remain,” they added, “about the safety of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in heart failure patients, due to a perceived increased risk of cardiovascular side effects.”

The study findings suggest that “there should be no concern about cardiovascular side effects from mRNA vaccines in heart failure patients,” Dr. Sindet-Pedersen and colleagues summarized.

The results also “point to a beneficial effect of vaccination on mortality” and “indicate that patients with HF should be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters,” they added.

“There are ongoing concerns about the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in fragile patients and patients with heart failure,” said Dr. Metra, professor of cardiology and director of the Institute of Cardiology of the Civil Hospital and University of Brescia (Italy).

“These concerns are not based on evidence but just on reports of rare side effects (namely, myocarditis and pericarditis) in vaccinated people,” he added.

Dr. Metra also coauthored a position paper on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with HF from the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, which was published online October 2021 in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

“The current study,” he summarized, “shows a lower risk of mortality among patients vaccinated, compared with those not vaccinated.

“It has limitations,” he cautioned, “as it is not a prospective randomized study, but [rather] an observational one with comparison between vaccinated and not vaccinated patients with similar characteristics.

“However, it was done in a large population,” he noted, “and its results confirm that the major risk for patients with HF is not receiving vaccination for COVID-19.”

95% of patients with HF in Denmark double vaccinated

The group did not analyze the types of all-cause death in their study, Dr. Sindet-Pedersen clarified in an interview.

Other studies have shown that vaccines are associated with improved survival, she noted. For example, bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccines and the measles vaccines have been linked with a decreased risk for nonspecific mortality in children, and influenza vaccines are associated with decreased all-cause mortality in patients with HF.

The rates of vaccination in this study were much higher than those for patients with HF in the United States.

In a study of 7,094 patients with HF seen at the Mount Sinai Health System between January 2021 and January 2022, 31% of patients were fully vaccinated with two doses and 14.8% had also received a booster, as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance. However, another 9.1% of patients were only partially vaccinated with one dose, and 45% remained unvaccinated by January 2022,

In the current study, “the uptake was very high,” Dr. Sindet-Pedersen noted, that is, “95% of the prevalent heart failure patients in 2021 received a vaccine.”

“It might be that the last 5% of the patients that did not receive a vaccine were too ill [terminal] to receive the vaccine,” she speculated, “or that was due to personal reasons.”

The researchers identified 50,893 patients with HF who were double vaccinated in 2021 and they matched them with 50,893 unvaccinated patients with HF in 2019 (prepandemic), with the same age, sex, HF duration, use of HF medications, ischemic heart disease, cancer, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and admission with HF within 90 days.

Almost all patients in the vaccinated group received the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine (92%) and the rest received the Moderna mRNA vaccine (8%), in 2021.

The patients had a mean age of 74, and 64% were men. They had HF for a median of 4.1 years.

During the 90-day follow-up, 1,311 patients in the unvaccinated cohort (2.56%) and 1,113 patients in the vaccinated cohort (2.23%) died; there was a significantly lower risk for all-cause death in the vaccinated cohort versus the unvaccinated cohort (–0.33 percentage points; 95% CI, –0.52 to –0.15 percentage points).

The risk for worsening heart failure was 1.1% in each group; myocarditis and venous thromboembolism were extremely rare, and risks for these conditions were not significantly different in the two groups.

The researchers and Dr. Metra declared they have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Metra is editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Heart Failure and senior consulting editor of the European Heart Journal.

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

Patients with heart failure (HF) who received two doses of COVID mRNA vaccines were not more likely to have worsening disease, venous thromboembolism, or myocarditis within 90 days than similar unvaccinated patients, in a case-control study in Denmark.

Moreover, in the 90 days after receiving the second shot, vaccinated patients were less likely to die of any cause, compared with unvaccinated patients during a similar 90-day period.

Caroline Sindet-Pedersen, PhD, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, and colleagues presented these findings at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Major risk is not receiving vaccine

These results “confirm that the major risk for patients with HF is not receiving vaccination for COVID-19,” Marco Metra, MD, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. Metra was coauthor of an ESC guidance for the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic, published online ahead of print November 2021 in the European Heart Journal.

The guidance explains that patients with HF are at increased risk for hospitalization, need for mechanical ventilation, and death because of COVID-19, and that vaccination reduces the risk for serious illness from COVID-19, Dr. Sindet-Pedersen and colleagues explained in a press release from the ESC.

However, “concerns remain,” they added, “about the safety of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in heart failure patients, due to a perceived increased risk of cardiovascular side effects.”

The study findings suggest that “there should be no concern about cardiovascular side effects from mRNA vaccines in heart failure patients,” Dr. Sindet-Pedersen and colleagues summarized.

The results also “point to a beneficial effect of vaccination on mortality” and “indicate that patients with HF should be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters,” they added.

“There are ongoing concerns about the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in fragile patients and patients with heart failure,” said Dr. Metra, professor of cardiology and director of the Institute of Cardiology of the Civil Hospital and University of Brescia (Italy).

“These concerns are not based on evidence but just on reports of rare side effects (namely, myocarditis and pericarditis) in vaccinated people,” he added.

Dr. Metra also coauthored a position paper on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with HF from the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, which was published online October 2021 in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

“The current study,” he summarized, “shows a lower risk of mortality among patients vaccinated, compared with those not vaccinated.

“It has limitations,” he cautioned, “as it is not a prospective randomized study, but [rather] an observational one with comparison between vaccinated and not vaccinated patients with similar characteristics.

“However, it was done in a large population,” he noted, “and its results confirm that the major risk for patients with HF is not receiving vaccination for COVID-19.”

95% of patients with HF in Denmark double vaccinated

The group did not analyze the types of all-cause death in their study, Dr. Sindet-Pedersen clarified in an interview.

Other studies have shown that vaccines are associated with improved survival, she noted. For example, bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccines and the measles vaccines have been linked with a decreased risk for nonspecific mortality in children, and influenza vaccines are associated with decreased all-cause mortality in patients with HF.

The rates of vaccination in this study were much higher than those for patients with HF in the United States.

In a study of 7,094 patients with HF seen at the Mount Sinai Health System between January 2021 and January 2022, 31% of patients were fully vaccinated with two doses and 14.8% had also received a booster, as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance. However, another 9.1% of patients were only partially vaccinated with one dose, and 45% remained unvaccinated by January 2022,

In the current study, “the uptake was very high,” Dr. Sindet-Pedersen noted, that is, “95% of the prevalent heart failure patients in 2021 received a vaccine.”

“It might be that the last 5% of the patients that did not receive a vaccine were too ill [terminal] to receive the vaccine,” she speculated, “or that was due to personal reasons.”

The researchers identified 50,893 patients with HF who were double vaccinated in 2021 and they matched them with 50,893 unvaccinated patients with HF in 2019 (prepandemic), with the same age, sex, HF duration, use of HF medications, ischemic heart disease, cancer, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and admission with HF within 90 days.

Almost all patients in the vaccinated group received the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine (92%) and the rest received the Moderna mRNA vaccine (8%), in 2021.

The patients had a mean age of 74, and 64% were men. They had HF for a median of 4.1 years.

During the 90-day follow-up, 1,311 patients in the unvaccinated cohort (2.56%) and 1,113 patients in the vaccinated cohort (2.23%) died; there was a significantly lower risk for all-cause death in the vaccinated cohort versus the unvaccinated cohort (–0.33 percentage points; 95% CI, –0.52 to –0.15 percentage points).

The risk for worsening heart failure was 1.1% in each group; myocarditis and venous thromboembolism were extremely rare, and risks for these conditions were not significantly different in the two groups.

The researchers and Dr. Metra declared they have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Metra is editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Heart Failure and senior consulting editor of the European Heart Journal.

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

Allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ischemic heart disease, new randomized trial results show.

Treatment of these patients without gout with 600 mg of allopurinol daily had no effect on composite primary endpoint outcomes, including nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV death.

“ALL-HEART is the first large, prospective, randomized trial of the effect of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease and provides robust evidence on the role of allopurinol in these patients,” principal investigator Isla Shelagh Mackenzie, MBChB (Honors), PhD, University of Dundee (Scotland), concluded at a press conference.

Their results suggest allopurinol should not be recommended for secondary prevention of events in this group, Dr. Mackenzie said. Although it remains an important treatment for gout, she added, “other avenues for treatment of ischemic heart disease should be explored in future.”

Results of the ALL-HEART (Allopurinol and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Ischemic Heart Disease) trial were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Gout treatment

Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor and acts by reducing serum uric acid levels and oxidative stress. Treatment is generally well tolerated, Dr. Mackenzie noted in her presentation, but some patients develop a rash, which can in some cases be serious or even fatal, progressing to Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis, “particularly in certain ethnicities.” If rash develops, the advice is to stop treatment immediately.

“The importance of serum uric acid levels in cardiovascular disease is controversial, and there have been different reports over the years of how important they may be,” Dr. Mackenzie explained.

Observational studies have shown variable results, whereas intervention trials, most with fewer than 100 participants, have suggested potential improvements in factors such as blood pressure, endothelial function, left ventricular hypertrophy, or carotid intima-media thickness. Some have reported benefits in acute coronary syndrome and coronary artery bypass grafting, but others have not, she said. A previous study by their own group suggested an improvement in chest pain and exercise time in patients with chronic stable angina and documented coronary artery disease (CAD).

“So, until now, there have been no large prospective randomized trials of the effects of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease,” Dr. Mackenzie said, and this was the aim of ALL-HEART.

ALL-HEART was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, multicenter trial. Patients with ischemia heart disease but no history of gout were recruited from 424 general practices across the United Kingdom, starting in February 2014 and with follow-up ending in September 2021. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 600 mg of allopurinol daily or usual care.

“It was a decentralized trial, so the follow-up was largely remote after the first 6 weeks, and that included using record linkage data collected from centralized NHS [National Health Service] databases for hospitalizations and deaths in Scotland and England,” she said. The average follow-up was 4.8 years.

During that time, 258 (9.0%) participants in the allopurinol group and 76 (2.6%) in usual care withdrew from follow-up. By the end of the trial, 57.4% of patients in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomized treatment.

Mean serum uric acid levels dropped from 0.34 mmol/L at baseline to 0.18 mmol/L at 6 weeks of treatment, “so we can see that the treatment was effective at lowering uric acid,” she noted.

In total, there were 5,721 patients in the final intention-to-treat analysis, and 639 patients had a first primary event.

For the primary outcome of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death, there was no difference between the groups, the researchers reported, with a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.21; P = .65). Similarly, in secondary analyses, there were no differences in any of the component endpoints making up the primary outcome (nonfatal MI: HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.78-1.21; P = .81; nonfatal stroke: HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.89-1.60; P = .23; cardiovascular death: HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43; P = .48), or in all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87-1.20; P = .77), between the two groups, Dr. Mackenzie noted, “so a definitively neutral trial all round.”

In addition, no differences were seen in prespecified subgroups, including age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or diabetes, MI, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, stroke, and stroke or transient ischemic attack at baseline.

There were also no significant effects on quality of life outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses are ongoing, although no differences are expected there, Dr. Mackenzie noted.

In terms of safety, incident cancers and all-cause mortality did not differ between groups. Serious adverse events were also similar between groups, Dr. Mackenzie said, “and there were no fatal treatment-related SAEs [serious adverse events] in the study.”

Another negative antioxidant trial

Invited discussant for the presentation, Leslie Cho, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said that ALL-HEART, while an excellent trial with a pragmatic design, constitutes yet another negative antioxidant trial.

She pointed to three problems with this study and antioxidant trials in general. “First, the problem is with the antioxidant,” a xanthine oxidase inhibitor. “Xanthine oxidase is not a major trigger of oxidative stress. In a field of major players,” including nitric oxide, uncoupled endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and mitochondria myeloperoxidase, Dr. Cho said, “xanthine oxidase is a minor player.”

“Moreover, 57% of the patients stopped taking allopurinol, and rightfully so,” she said. Patients were receiving optimal medical therapies, many of which are also antioxidants, including statins, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers.

Second, the patient population was older, with an average age of 72 years. “This makes the ALL-HEART study a chronic angina study, chronic CAD study, one of the oldest modern day CAD trials. If you look at LoDoCo or ISCHEMIA trials, the average age is 63.” Patients also had established disease, many with previous revascularization.

The final issue seen with this trial, and all antioxidant trials, is that patient selection is not based on oxidative stress or antioxidant level. “The antioxidant trials have been disappointing at best. There is clear and convincing evidence that oxidative stress is involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, and yet study after study of antioxidant trials have been negative,” she said.

“Currently, there is no reliable measurement of global level of oxidative stress,” Dr. Cho noted. “Moreover, dose response was not tested, and if we cannot test the baseline antioxidant stress level of patients, we also cannot measure the effect of treatment on the global oxidative stress.”

So, “is there no hope for antioxidant trials?” she asked. Three factors will be required for future success, she said. “No. 1, selecting the right patient at the right time. No. 2, a reliable biomarker to measure oxidative stress to guide who should get therapy, and if the therapy is working. And lastly, targeted therapies that work on major triggers of oxidative stress.”

Also commenting on the results, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute/Atrium Health, clinical professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, called ALL-HEART “an important and interesting study.”

“For years, cardiologists and others have been interested in allopurinol as an anti-inflammatory, xanthine oxidase inhibitor ... to prevent coronary ischemic events,” he said in an interview.

But this was a well-designed, well-conducted study, and “unfortunately there was no improvement in the primary outcome, no reduction in major cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction or stroke or cardiovascular death,” Dr. Wilson said. “So, it’s a bit of a disappointment that it’s not there as an important medication to help us with these patients with ischemic heart disease, but it’s also an important question answered — that we need to look at treatments for ischemic heart disease other than allopurinol.”

The trial was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program in the United Kingdom. Dr. Mackenzie reported research contracts to her institution from NIHR HTA for this work, and other disclosures related to other work. Dr. Cho and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ischemic heart disease, new randomized trial results show.

Treatment of these patients without gout with 600 mg of allopurinol daily had no effect on composite primary endpoint outcomes, including nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV death.

“ALL-HEART is the first large, prospective, randomized trial of the effect of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease and provides robust evidence on the role of allopurinol in these patients,” principal investigator Isla Shelagh Mackenzie, MBChB (Honors), PhD, University of Dundee (Scotland), concluded at a press conference.

Their results suggest allopurinol should not be recommended for secondary prevention of events in this group, Dr. Mackenzie said. Although it remains an important treatment for gout, she added, “other avenues for treatment of ischemic heart disease should be explored in future.”

Results of the ALL-HEART (Allopurinol and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Ischemic Heart Disease) trial were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Gout treatment

Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor and acts by reducing serum uric acid levels and oxidative stress. Treatment is generally well tolerated, Dr. Mackenzie noted in her presentation, but some patients develop a rash, which can in some cases be serious or even fatal, progressing to Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis, “particularly in certain ethnicities.” If rash develops, the advice is to stop treatment immediately.

“The importance of serum uric acid levels in cardiovascular disease is controversial, and there have been different reports over the years of how important they may be,” Dr. Mackenzie explained.

Observational studies have shown variable results, whereas intervention trials, most with fewer than 100 participants, have suggested potential improvements in factors such as blood pressure, endothelial function, left ventricular hypertrophy, or carotid intima-media thickness. Some have reported benefits in acute coronary syndrome and coronary artery bypass grafting, but others have not, she said. A previous study by their own group suggested an improvement in chest pain and exercise time in patients with chronic stable angina and documented coronary artery disease (CAD).

“So, until now, there have been no large prospective randomized trials of the effects of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease,” Dr. Mackenzie said, and this was the aim of ALL-HEART.

ALL-HEART was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, multicenter trial. Patients with ischemia heart disease but no history of gout were recruited from 424 general practices across the United Kingdom, starting in February 2014 and with follow-up ending in September 2021. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 600 mg of allopurinol daily or usual care.

“It was a decentralized trial, so the follow-up was largely remote after the first 6 weeks, and that included using record linkage data collected from centralized NHS [National Health Service] databases for hospitalizations and deaths in Scotland and England,” she said. The average follow-up was 4.8 years.

During that time, 258 (9.0%) participants in the allopurinol group and 76 (2.6%) in usual care withdrew from follow-up. By the end of the trial, 57.4% of patients in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomized treatment.

Mean serum uric acid levels dropped from 0.34 mmol/L at baseline to 0.18 mmol/L at 6 weeks of treatment, “so we can see that the treatment was effective at lowering uric acid,” she noted.

In total, there were 5,721 patients in the final intention-to-treat analysis, and 639 patients had a first primary event.

For the primary outcome of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death, there was no difference between the groups, the researchers reported, with a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.21; P = .65). Similarly, in secondary analyses, there were no differences in any of the component endpoints making up the primary outcome (nonfatal MI: HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.78-1.21; P = .81; nonfatal stroke: HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.89-1.60; P = .23; cardiovascular death: HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43; P = .48), or in all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87-1.20; P = .77), between the two groups, Dr. Mackenzie noted, “so a definitively neutral trial all round.”

In addition, no differences were seen in prespecified subgroups, including age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or diabetes, MI, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, stroke, and stroke or transient ischemic attack at baseline.

There were also no significant effects on quality of life outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses are ongoing, although no differences are expected there, Dr. Mackenzie noted.

In terms of safety, incident cancers and all-cause mortality did not differ between groups. Serious adverse events were also similar between groups, Dr. Mackenzie said, “and there were no fatal treatment-related SAEs [serious adverse events] in the study.”

Another negative antioxidant trial

Invited discussant for the presentation, Leslie Cho, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said that ALL-HEART, while an excellent trial with a pragmatic design, constitutes yet another negative antioxidant trial.

She pointed to three problems with this study and antioxidant trials in general. “First, the problem is with the antioxidant,” a xanthine oxidase inhibitor. “Xanthine oxidase is not a major trigger of oxidative stress. In a field of major players,” including nitric oxide, uncoupled endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and mitochondria myeloperoxidase, Dr. Cho said, “xanthine oxidase is a minor player.”

“Moreover, 57% of the patients stopped taking allopurinol, and rightfully so,” she said. Patients were receiving optimal medical therapies, many of which are also antioxidants, including statins, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers.

Second, the patient population was older, with an average age of 72 years. “This makes the ALL-HEART study a chronic angina study, chronic CAD study, one of the oldest modern day CAD trials. If you look at LoDoCo or ISCHEMIA trials, the average age is 63.” Patients also had established disease, many with previous revascularization.

The final issue seen with this trial, and all antioxidant trials, is that patient selection is not based on oxidative stress or antioxidant level. “The antioxidant trials have been disappointing at best. There is clear and convincing evidence that oxidative stress is involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, and yet study after study of antioxidant trials have been negative,” she said.

“Currently, there is no reliable measurement of global level of oxidative stress,” Dr. Cho noted. “Moreover, dose response was not tested, and if we cannot test the baseline antioxidant stress level of patients, we also cannot measure the effect of treatment on the global oxidative stress.”

So, “is there no hope for antioxidant trials?” she asked. Three factors will be required for future success, she said. “No. 1, selecting the right patient at the right time. No. 2, a reliable biomarker to measure oxidative stress to guide who should get therapy, and if the therapy is working. And lastly, targeted therapies that work on major triggers of oxidative stress.”

Also commenting on the results, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute/Atrium Health, clinical professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, called ALL-HEART “an important and interesting study.”

“For years, cardiologists and others have been interested in allopurinol as an anti-inflammatory, xanthine oxidase inhibitor ... to prevent coronary ischemic events,” he said in an interview.

But this was a well-designed, well-conducted study, and “unfortunately there was no improvement in the primary outcome, no reduction in major cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction or stroke or cardiovascular death,” Dr. Wilson said. “So, it’s a bit of a disappointment that it’s not there as an important medication to help us with these patients with ischemic heart disease, but it’s also an important question answered — that we need to look at treatments for ischemic heart disease other than allopurinol.”

The trial was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program in the United Kingdom. Dr. Mackenzie reported research contracts to her institution from NIHR HTA for this work, and other disclosures related to other work. Dr. Cho and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ischemic heart disease, new randomized trial results show.

Treatment of these patients without gout with 600 mg of allopurinol daily had no effect on composite primary endpoint outcomes, including nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV death.

“ALL-HEART is the first large, prospective, randomized trial of the effect of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease and provides robust evidence on the role of allopurinol in these patients,” principal investigator Isla Shelagh Mackenzie, MBChB (Honors), PhD, University of Dundee (Scotland), concluded at a press conference.

Their results suggest allopurinol should not be recommended for secondary prevention of events in this group, Dr. Mackenzie said. Although it remains an important treatment for gout, she added, “other avenues for treatment of ischemic heart disease should be explored in future.”

Results of the ALL-HEART (Allopurinol and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Ischemic Heart Disease) trial were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Gout treatment

Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor and acts by reducing serum uric acid levels and oxidative stress. Treatment is generally well tolerated, Dr. Mackenzie noted in her presentation, but some patients develop a rash, which can in some cases be serious or even fatal, progressing to Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis, “particularly in certain ethnicities.” If rash develops, the advice is to stop treatment immediately.

“The importance of serum uric acid levels in cardiovascular disease is controversial, and there have been different reports over the years of how important they may be,” Dr. Mackenzie explained.

Observational studies have shown variable results, whereas intervention trials, most with fewer than 100 participants, have suggested potential improvements in factors such as blood pressure, endothelial function, left ventricular hypertrophy, or carotid intima-media thickness. Some have reported benefits in acute coronary syndrome and coronary artery bypass grafting, but others have not, she said. A previous study by their own group suggested an improvement in chest pain and exercise time in patients with chronic stable angina and documented coronary artery disease (CAD).

“So, until now, there have been no large prospective randomized trials of the effects of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease,” Dr. Mackenzie said, and this was the aim of ALL-HEART.

ALL-HEART was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, multicenter trial. Patients with ischemia heart disease but no history of gout were recruited from 424 general practices across the United Kingdom, starting in February 2014 and with follow-up ending in September 2021. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 600 mg of allopurinol daily or usual care.

“It was a decentralized trial, so the follow-up was largely remote after the first 6 weeks, and that included using record linkage data collected from centralized NHS [National Health Service] databases for hospitalizations and deaths in Scotland and England,” she said. The average follow-up was 4.8 years.

During that time, 258 (9.0%) participants in the allopurinol group and 76 (2.6%) in usual care withdrew from follow-up. By the end of the trial, 57.4% of patients in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomized treatment.

Mean serum uric acid levels dropped from 0.34 mmol/L at baseline to 0.18 mmol/L at 6 weeks of treatment, “so we can see that the treatment was effective at lowering uric acid,” she noted.

In total, there were 5,721 patients in the final intention-to-treat analysis, and 639 patients had a first primary event.

For the primary outcome of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death, there was no difference between the groups, the researchers reported, with a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.21; P = .65). Similarly, in secondary analyses, there were no differences in any of the component endpoints making up the primary outcome (nonfatal MI: HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.78-1.21; P = .81; nonfatal stroke: HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.89-1.60; P = .23; cardiovascular death: HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43; P = .48), or in all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87-1.20; P = .77), between the two groups, Dr. Mackenzie noted, “so a definitively neutral trial all round.”

In addition, no differences were seen in prespecified subgroups, including age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or diabetes, MI, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, stroke, and stroke or transient ischemic attack at baseline.

There were also no significant effects on quality of life outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses are ongoing, although no differences are expected there, Dr. Mackenzie noted.

In terms of safety, incident cancers and all-cause mortality did not differ between groups. Serious adverse events were also similar between groups, Dr. Mackenzie said, “and there were no fatal treatment-related SAEs [serious adverse events] in the study.”

Another negative antioxidant trial

Invited discussant for the presentation, Leslie Cho, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said that ALL-HEART, while an excellent trial with a pragmatic design, constitutes yet another negative antioxidant trial.

She pointed to three problems with this study and antioxidant trials in general. “First, the problem is with the antioxidant,” a xanthine oxidase inhibitor. “Xanthine oxidase is not a major trigger of oxidative stress. In a field of major players,” including nitric oxide, uncoupled endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and mitochondria myeloperoxidase, Dr. Cho said, “xanthine oxidase is a minor player.”

“Moreover, 57% of the patients stopped taking allopurinol, and rightfully so,” she said. Patients were receiving optimal medical therapies, many of which are also antioxidants, including statins, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers.

Second, the patient population was older, with an average age of 72 years. “This makes the ALL-HEART study a chronic angina study, chronic CAD study, one of the oldest modern day CAD trials. If you look at LoDoCo or ISCHEMIA trials, the average age is 63.” Patients also had established disease, many with previous revascularization.

The final issue seen with this trial, and all antioxidant trials, is that patient selection is not based on oxidative stress or antioxidant level. “The antioxidant trials have been disappointing at best. There is clear and convincing evidence that oxidative stress is involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, and yet study after study of antioxidant trials have been negative,” she said.

“Currently, there is no reliable measurement of global level of oxidative stress,” Dr. Cho noted. “Moreover, dose response was not tested, and if we cannot test the baseline antioxidant stress level of patients, we also cannot measure the effect of treatment on the global oxidative stress.”

So, “is there no hope for antioxidant trials?” she asked. Three factors will be required for future success, she said. “No. 1, selecting the right patient at the right time. No. 2, a reliable biomarker to measure oxidative stress to guide who should get therapy, and if the therapy is working. And lastly, targeted therapies that work on major triggers of oxidative stress.”

Also commenting on the results, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute/Atrium Health, clinical professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, called ALL-HEART “an important and interesting study.”

“For years, cardiologists and others have been interested in allopurinol as an anti-inflammatory, xanthine oxidase inhibitor ... to prevent coronary ischemic events,” he said in an interview.

But this was a well-designed, well-conducted study, and “unfortunately there was no improvement in the primary outcome, no reduction in major cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction or stroke or cardiovascular death,” Dr. Wilson said. “So, it’s a bit of a disappointment that it’s not there as an important medication to help us with these patients with ischemic heart disease, but it’s also an important question answered — that we need to look at treatments for ischemic heart disease other than allopurinol.”

The trial was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program in the United Kingdom. Dr. Mackenzie reported research contracts to her institution from NIHR HTA for this work, and other disclosures related to other work. Dr. Cho and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

BARCELONA – Fewer than half the adults in Denmark with type 2 diabetes in 2015 had a recent assessment for albuminuria, and those who underwent testing and had albuminuria had a greater than 50% increased rate of incident heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death during 4-year follow-up, in a study of more than 74,000 Danish residents.

Even those in this study with type 2 diabetes but without albuminuria had a 19% rate of these adverse outcomes, highlighting the “substantial” cardiovascular disease risk faced by people with type 2 diabetes even without a clear indication of nephropathy, Saaima Parveen, MD, a cardiology researcher at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

This high rate of heart failure, MI, stroke, or death even in the absence of what is conventionally defined as albuminuria – a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of at least 30 mg/g – suggests that this threshold for albuminuria may be too high, commented Luis M. Ruilope, MD, professor of public health and preventive medicine at Autonoma University, Madrid, who was not involved with the Danish study.

The study reported by Dr. Parveen “is very important because it shows that the risk of events is high not only in people with diabetes with albuminuria, but also in those without albuminuria,” Dr. Ruilope said in an interview.

The profile of albuminuria as a risk marker for people with type 2 diabetes spiked following the 2021 U.S. approval of finerenone (Kerendia) as an agent specifically targeted to adults with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria. (Finerenone gained marketing approval by in Europe in February 2022 under the same brand name.)
 

A lower threshold for albuminuria?

“Even patients with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g have risk and should be considered for finerenone treatment, said Dr. Ruilope. “People with type 2 diabetes with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g could explain” the high background risk shown by Dr. Parveen in her reported data. “In people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of 10-29 mg/g we also see progression of kidney disease, but it’s slower” than in those who meet the current, standard threshold for albuminuria.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Dr. Ruilope was a coinvestigator for both of the finerenone pivotal trials, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD. Although the design of both these studies specified enrollment of people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of at least 30 mg/g, a few hundred of the total combined enrollment of more than 13,000 patients had UACR values below this level, and analysis of this subgroup could provide some important insights into the value of finerenone for people with “high normal” albuminuria, he said.

The study led by Dr. Parveen used data routinely collected in Danish national records and focused on all Danish adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes as of Jan. 1, 2015, who also had information in their records for a UACR and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) within the preceding year.

The records showed that only 47% of these people had a UACR value during this time frame, and that 57% had a recent measure of their eGFR, despite prevailing recommendations for routine and regular measurements of these parameters for all people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Parveen hypothesized that UACR measurement may lag for several reasons, such as reliance by primary care physicians on urine dipstick assessments, which preclude calculation of a UACR, poor adherence to regular medical assessment by people in low socioeconomic groups, and medical examination done outside of morning time periods, which is the best time of day for assessing UACR.

More albuminuria measurement needed in primary care

“Measurement of albuminuria in people with type 2 diabetes is improving in Europe, but is not yet at the level that’s needed,” commented Dr. Ruilope. “We are pushing to have it done more often in primary care practices,” he said.

Among the 74,014 people with type 2 diabetes who had the measurement records that allowed for their inclusion in the study, 40% had albuminuria and 60% did not.

During 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death was 28.6% in those with albuminuria and 18.7% among those without albuminuria, reported Dr. Parveen.

The rates for each event type in those with albuminuria were 7.0% for heart failure, 4.4% for MI, 7.6% for stroke, and 16.6% for all-cause death (each patient could tally more than one type of event). Among those without albuminuria, the rates were 4.0%, 3.2%, 5.5%, and 9.3%, respectively.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parveen and Dr. Ruilope had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Fewer than half the adults in Denmark with type 2 diabetes in 2015 had a recent assessment for albuminuria, and those who underwent testing and had albuminuria had a greater than 50% increased rate of incident heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death during 4-year follow-up, in a study of more than 74,000 Danish residents.

Even those in this study with type 2 diabetes but without albuminuria had a 19% rate of these adverse outcomes, highlighting the “substantial” cardiovascular disease risk faced by people with type 2 diabetes even without a clear indication of nephropathy, Saaima Parveen, MD, a cardiology researcher at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

This high rate of heart failure, MI, stroke, or death even in the absence of what is conventionally defined as albuminuria – a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of at least 30 mg/g – suggests that this threshold for albuminuria may be too high, commented Luis M. Ruilope, MD, professor of public health and preventive medicine at Autonoma University, Madrid, who was not involved with the Danish study.

The study reported by Dr. Parveen “is very important because it shows that the risk of events is high not only in people with diabetes with albuminuria, but also in those without albuminuria,” Dr. Ruilope said in an interview.

The profile of albuminuria as a risk marker for people with type 2 diabetes spiked following the 2021 U.S. approval of finerenone (Kerendia) as an agent specifically targeted to adults with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria. (Finerenone gained marketing approval by in Europe in February 2022 under the same brand name.)
 

A lower threshold for albuminuria?

“Even patients with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g have risk and should be considered for finerenone treatment, said Dr. Ruilope. “People with type 2 diabetes with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g could explain” the high background risk shown by Dr. Parveen in her reported data. “In people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of 10-29 mg/g we also see progression of kidney disease, but it’s slower” than in those who meet the current, standard threshold for albuminuria.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Dr. Ruilope was a coinvestigator for both of the finerenone pivotal trials, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD. Although the design of both these studies specified enrollment of people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of at least 30 mg/g, a few hundred of the total combined enrollment of more than 13,000 patients had UACR values below this level, and analysis of this subgroup could provide some important insights into the value of finerenone for people with “high normal” albuminuria, he said.

The study led by Dr. Parveen used data routinely collected in Danish national records and focused on all Danish adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes as of Jan. 1, 2015, who also had information in their records for a UACR and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) within the preceding year.

The records showed that only 47% of these people had a UACR value during this time frame, and that 57% had a recent measure of their eGFR, despite prevailing recommendations for routine and regular measurements of these parameters for all people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Parveen hypothesized that UACR measurement may lag for several reasons, such as reliance by primary care physicians on urine dipstick assessments, which preclude calculation of a UACR, poor adherence to regular medical assessment by people in low socioeconomic groups, and medical examination done outside of morning time periods, which is the best time of day for assessing UACR.

More albuminuria measurement needed in primary care

“Measurement of albuminuria in people with type 2 diabetes is improving in Europe, but is not yet at the level that’s needed,” commented Dr. Ruilope. “We are pushing to have it done more often in primary care practices,” he said.

Among the 74,014 people with type 2 diabetes who had the measurement records that allowed for their inclusion in the study, 40% had albuminuria and 60% did not.

During 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death was 28.6% in those with albuminuria and 18.7% among those without albuminuria, reported Dr. Parveen.

The rates for each event type in those with albuminuria were 7.0% for heart failure, 4.4% for MI, 7.6% for stroke, and 16.6% for all-cause death (each patient could tally more than one type of event). Among those without albuminuria, the rates were 4.0%, 3.2%, 5.5%, and 9.3%, respectively.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parveen and Dr. Ruilope had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Fewer than half the adults in Denmark with type 2 diabetes in 2015 had a recent assessment for albuminuria, and those who underwent testing and had albuminuria had a greater than 50% increased rate of incident heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death during 4-year follow-up, in a study of more than 74,000 Danish residents.

Even those in this study with type 2 diabetes but without albuminuria had a 19% rate of these adverse outcomes, highlighting the “substantial” cardiovascular disease risk faced by people with type 2 diabetes even without a clear indication of nephropathy, Saaima Parveen, MD, a cardiology researcher at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

This high rate of heart failure, MI, stroke, or death even in the absence of what is conventionally defined as albuminuria – a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of at least 30 mg/g – suggests that this threshold for albuminuria may be too high, commented Luis M. Ruilope, MD, professor of public health and preventive medicine at Autonoma University, Madrid, who was not involved with the Danish study.

The study reported by Dr. Parveen “is very important because it shows that the risk of events is high not only in people with diabetes with albuminuria, but also in those without albuminuria,” Dr. Ruilope said in an interview.

The profile of albuminuria as a risk marker for people with type 2 diabetes spiked following the 2021 U.S. approval of finerenone (Kerendia) as an agent specifically targeted to adults with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria. (Finerenone gained marketing approval by in Europe in February 2022 under the same brand name.)
 

A lower threshold for albuminuria?

“Even patients with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g have risk and should be considered for finerenone treatment, said Dr. Ruilope. “People with type 2 diabetes with a UACR of 10-29 mg/g could explain” the high background risk shown by Dr. Parveen in her reported data. “In people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of 10-29 mg/g we also see progression of kidney disease, but it’s slower” than in those who meet the current, standard threshold for albuminuria.

MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler

Dr. Ruilope was a coinvestigator for both of the finerenone pivotal trials, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD. Although the design of both these studies specified enrollment of people with type 2 diabetes and a UACR of at least 30 mg/g, a few hundred of the total combined enrollment of more than 13,000 patients had UACR values below this level, and analysis of this subgroup could provide some important insights into the value of finerenone for people with “high normal” albuminuria, he said.

The study led by Dr. Parveen used data routinely collected in Danish national records and focused on all Danish adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes as of Jan. 1, 2015, who also had information in their records for a UACR and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) within the preceding year.

The records showed that only 47% of these people had a UACR value during this time frame, and that 57% had a recent measure of their eGFR, despite prevailing recommendations for routine and regular measurements of these parameters for all people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Parveen hypothesized that UACR measurement may lag for several reasons, such as reliance by primary care physicians on urine dipstick assessments, which preclude calculation of a UACR, poor adherence to regular medical assessment by people in low socioeconomic groups, and medical examination done outside of morning time periods, which is the best time of day for assessing UACR.

More albuminuria measurement needed in primary care

“Measurement of albuminuria in people with type 2 diabetes is improving in Europe, but is not yet at the level that’s needed,” commented Dr. Ruilope. “We are pushing to have it done more often in primary care practices,” he said.

Among the 74,014 people with type 2 diabetes who had the measurement records that allowed for their inclusion in the study, 40% had albuminuria and 60% did not.

During 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of heart failure, MI, stroke, or all-cause death was 28.6% in those with albuminuria and 18.7% among those without albuminuria, reported Dr. Parveen.

The rates for each event type in those with albuminuria were 7.0% for heart failure, 4.4% for MI, 7.6% for stroke, and 16.6% for all-cause death (each patient could tally more than one type of event). Among those without albuminuria, the rates were 4.0%, 3.2%, 5.5%, and 9.3%, respectively.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parveen and Dr. Ruilope had no disclosures.

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

Comprehensive image-based cardiovascular screening in men aged 65-74 years did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality in a new Danish study, although there were strong suggestions of benefit in some cardiovascular endpoints in the whole group and also in mortality in those aged younger than 70.

The DANCAVAS study was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, being held in Barcelona. It was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“I do believe there is something in this study,” lead investigator Axel Diederichsen, PhD, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, told this news organization.

“We can decrease all-cause mortality by screening in men younger than 70. That’s amazing, I think. And in the entire group the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/stroke was significantly reduced by 7%.”

He pointed out that only 63% of the screening group actually attended the tests. “So that 63% had to account for the difference of 100% of the screening group, with an all-cause mortality endpoint. That is very ambitious. But even so, we were very close to meeting the all-cause mortality primary endpoint.”

Dr. Diederichsen believes the data could support such cardiovascular screening in men younger than 70. “In Denmark, I think this would be feasible, and our study suggests it would be cost effective compared to cancer screening,” he said.

Noting that Denmark has a relatively healthy population with good routine care, he added: “In other countries where it can be more difficult to access care or where cardiovascular health is not so good, such a screening program would probably have a greater effect.”

The population-based DANCAVAS trial randomly assigned 46,611 Danish men aged 65-74 years in a 1:2 ratio to undergo screening (invited group) or not to undergo screening (control group) for subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Screening included non-contrast electrocardiography-gated CT to determine the coronary-artery calcium score and to detect aneurysms and atrial fibrillation; ankle–brachial blood-pressure measurements to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension; and a blood sample to detect diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Of the 16,736 men who were invited to the screening group, 10,471 (62.6%) actually attended for the screening.

In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the primary endpoint (all cause death) had occurred in 2,106 men (12.6%) in the invited group and 3,915 men (13.1%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00; P = .06).

The hazard ratio for stroke in the invited group, compared with the control group, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99); for MI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.03); for aortic dissection, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.49); and for aortic rupture, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49-1.35).

The post-hoc composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/stroke/MI was reduced by 7%, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97).

There were no significant between-group differences in safety outcomes.

Subgroup analysis showed that the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly reduced in men invited to screening who were aged 65-69 years (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), with no effect in men aged 70-74.

Other findings showed that in the group invited to screening, there was a large increase in use of antiplatelet medication (HR, 3.12) and in lipid lowering agents (HR, 2.54) but no difference in use of anticoagulants, antihypertensives, and diabetes drugs or in coronary or aortic revascularization.  

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the total additional health care costs were €207 ($206 U.S.) per person in the invited group, which included the screening, medication, and all physician and hospital visits.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per person was 0.023, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,075 ($9,043) per QALY in the whole cohort and €3,860 ($3,846) in the men aged 65-69.

Dr. Diederichsen said these figures compared favorably to cancer screening, with breast cancer screening having a cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,000 ($21,923) per QALY.

“This study is a step in the right direction,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview. But governments will have to decide if they want to spend public money on this type of screening. I would like this to happen. We can make a case for it with this data.”

He said the study had also collected some data on younger men – aged 60-64 – and in a small group of women, which has not been analyzed yet. “We would like to look at this to help us formulate recommendations,” he added.
 

Increased medical therapy

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC session, Harriette Van Spall, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., congratulated the DANCAVAS investigators for the trial, which she said was “implemented perfectly.”

“This is the kind of trial that is very difficult to run but comes from a big body of research from this remarkable group,” she commented.

Dr. Van Spall pointed out that it looked likely that any benefits from the screening approach were brought about by increased use of medical therapy alone (antiplatelet and lipid-lowering drugs). She added that the lack of an active screening comparator group made it unclear whether full CT imaging is more effective than active screening for traditional risk factors or assessment of global cardiovascular risk scores, and there was a missed opportunity to screen for and treat cigarette smoking in the intervention group.

“Aspects of the screening such as a full CT could be considered resource-intensive and not feasible in some health care systems. A strength of restricting the abdominal aorta iliac screening to a risk-enriched group – perhaps cigarette smokers – could have conserved additional resources,” she suggested.

Because 37% of the invited group did not attend for screening and at baseline these non-attendees had more comorbidities, this may have caused a bias in the intention to treat analysis toward the control group, thus underestimating the benefit of screening. There is therefore a role for a secondary on-treatment analysis, she noted.

Dr. Van Spall also pointed out that because of the population involved in this study, inferences can only be made to Danish men aged 65-74. 

Noting that cardiovascular disease is relevant to everyone, accounting for 24% of deaths in Danish females and 25% of deaths in Danish males, she asked the investigators to consider eliminating sex-based eligibility criteria in their next big cardiovascular prevention trial.

Susanna Price, MD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, and cochair of the ESC session at which DANCAVAS was presented, described the study as “really interesting” and useful in planning future screening approaches.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, and so the results may not change practice at this time, it should promote a look at different predefined endpoints in a larger population, including both men and women, to see what the best screening interventions would be,” she commented.

“What is interesting is that we are seeing huge amounts of money being spent on acute cardiac patients after having an event, but here we are beginning to shift the focus on how to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. That is starting to be the trend in cardiovascular medicine.”

Also commenting for this news organization, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, and immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology, said: “This study is asking the important question of whether comprehensive cardiovascular screening is needed, but I don’t think it has fully given the answer, although there did appear to be some benefit in those under 70.”

Dr. Itchhaporia questioned whether the 5-year follow up was long enough to show the true benefit of screening, and she suggested that a different approach with a longer monitoring period may have been better to detect AFib.

The DANCAVAS study was supported by the Southern Region of Denmark, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Danish Independent Research Councils.

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

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) does not prolong survival or improve ventricular function, compared with OMT alone, in patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy, according to results from the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial.

The primary composite outcome of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization occurred in 37.2% of the PCI group and 38% of the OMT group (hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .96) over a median of 3.4 years follow-up. The treatment effect was consistent across all subgroups.

There were no significant differences in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 and 12 months.

Quality of life scores favored PCI early on, but there was catch-up over time with medical therapy, and this advantage disappeared by 2 years, principal investigator Divaka Perera, MD, King’s College London, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“The takeaway is that we should not be offering PCI to patients who have stable, well-medicated left ventricular dysfunction,” Dr. Perera told this news organization. “But we should still consider revascularization in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes or who have lots of angina, because they were not included in the trial.”

The study, published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine, provides the first randomized evidence on PCI for ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Revascularization guidelines in the United States make no recommendation for PCI, whereas those in Europe recommend coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) first for patients with multivessel disease (class 1); they have a class 2a, level of evidence C indication for PCI in select patients. U.S. and European heart failure guidelines also support guideline directed therapy and CABG in select patients with ejection fractions of 35% or less.

This guidance is based on consensus opinion and the STICH trial, in which CABG plus OMT failed to provide a mortality benefit over OMT alone at 5 years but improved survival at 10 years in the extension STICHES study.

“Medical therapy for heart failure works, and this trial’s results are another important reminder of that,” said Eric Velazquez, MD, who led STICH and was invited to comment on the findings.

Mortality will only get better with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors, he noted, which were not included in the trial. Utilization of ACE inhibitors/ARBs/ARNIs and beta-blockers was similar to STICH and excellent in REVIVED. “They did do a better job in utilization of ICD and CRTs than the STICH trial, and I think that needs to be explored further about the impact of those changes.”

Nevertheless, ischemic cardiomyopathy patients have “unacceptably high mortality,” with the observed mortality about 20% at 3 years and about 35% at 5 years, said Dr. Velazquez, with Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

In most heart failure trials, HF hospitalization drives the primary composite endpoint, but the opposite was true here and in STICH, he observed. “You had twice the risk of dying during the 3.4 years than you did of being hospitalized for heart failure, and ... that is [an important] distinction we must realize is evident in our ischemic cardiomyopathy patients.”

The findings will likely not lead to a change in the guidelines, he added. “I think we continue as status quo for now and get more data.”

Despite the lack of randomized evidence, he cautioned that PCI is increasingly performed in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, with registry data suggesting nearly 60% of patients received the procedure.

Reached for comment, Clyde Yancy, MD, chief of cardiology and vice dean of diversity & inclusion at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said, “For now, the current guidelines are correct. Best application of guideline-directed medical and device therapy is the gold standard for heart failure, and that includes heart failure due to ischemic etiologies.

Detailed results

Between August 2013 and March 2020, REVIVED-BCIS2 enrolled 700 patients at 40 U.K. centers who had an LVEF of 35% or less, extensive CAD (defined by a British Cardiovascular Intervention Society myocardial Jeopardy Score [BCIS-JS] of at least 6), and viability in at least four myocardial segments amenable to PCI. Patients were evenly randomly assigned to individually adjusted pharmacologic and device therapy for heart failure alone or with PCI.

The average age was about 70, only 12.3% women, 344 patients had 2-vessel CAD, and 281 had 3-vessel CAD. The mean LVEF was 27% and median BCIS-JS score 10.

During follow-up, which reached 8.5 years in some patients due to the long enrollment, 31.7% of patients in the PCI group and 32.6% patients in the OMT group died from any cause and 14.7% and 15.3%, respectively, were admitted for heart failure.

LVEF improved by 1.8% at 6 months and 2% at 12 months in the PCI group and by 3.4% and 1.1%, respectively, in the OMT group. The mean between-group difference was –1.6% at 6 months and 0.9% at 12 months.

With regard to quality of life, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score favored the PCI group by 6.5 points at 6 months and by 4.5 points at 12 months, but by 24 months the between-group difference was 2.6 points (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to 5.8). Scores on the EuroQol Group 5-Dimensions 5-Level Questionnaire followed a similar pattern.

Unplanned revascularization was more common in the OMT group (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.13-0.53). Acute myocardial infarction rates were similar in the two groups (HR, 1.01, 95% CI, 0.64-1.60), with the PCI group having more periprocedural infarcts and slightly fewer spontaneous infarcts.

Possible reasons for the discordant results between STICH and REVIVED are the threefold excess mortality within 30 days of CABG, whereas no such early hit occurred with PCI, lead investigator Dr. Perera said in an interview. Medical therapy has also evolved over time and REVIVED enrolled a more “real-world” population, with a median age close to 70 years versus 59 in STICH.
 

‘Modest’ degree of CAD?

An accompanying editorial, however, points out that despite considerable ventricular dysfunction, about half the patients in REVIVED had only 2-vessel disease and a median of two lesions treated.

“This relatively modest degree of coronary artery disease seems unusual for patients selected to undergo revascularization with the hope of restoring or normalizing ventricular function,” writes Ajay Kirtane, MD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital.

He said more details are needed on completeness of the revascularization, severity of stenosis, physiologic assessment of the lesion and, “most importantly, the correlation of stenosis with previous ischemic or viability testing.”

Asked about the editorial, Dr. Perera agreed that information on the type of revascularization and myocardial viability are important and said they hope to share analyses of the only recently unblinded data at the American College of Cardiology meeting next spring. Importantly, about 71% of viability testing was done by cardiac MR and the rest largely by dobutamine stress echocardiogram.

He disagreed, however, that participants had relatively modest CAD based on the 2- or 3-vessel classification and said the median score on the more granular BCIS-JS was 10, with maximum 12 indicating the entire myocardium is supplied by diseased vessels.

The trial also included almost 100 patients with left main disease, a group not included in previous medical therapy trials, including STICH and ISCHEMIA, Dr. Perera noted. “So, I think it was pretty, pretty severe coronary disease but a cohort that was better treated medically.”

George Dangas, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study provides valuable information but also expressed concerns that the chronic heart failure in the trial was much more advanced than the CAD.

Copyright American Heart Association copyright American Heart Association copyright American Heart Association

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

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) does not prolong survival or improve ventricular function, compared with OMT alone, in patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy, according to results from the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial.

The primary composite outcome of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization occurred in 37.2% of the PCI group and 38% of the OMT group (hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .96) over a median of 3.4 years follow-up. The treatment effect was consistent across all subgroups.

There were no significant differences in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 and 12 months.

Quality of life scores favored PCI early on, but there was catch-up over time with medical therapy, and this advantage disappeared by 2 years, principal investigator Divaka Perera, MD, King’s College London, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“The takeaway is that we should not be offering PCI to patients who have stable, well-medicated left ventricular dysfunction,” Dr. Perera told this news organization. “But we should still consider revascularization in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes or who have lots of angina, because they were not included in the trial.”

The study, published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine, provides the first randomized evidence on PCI for ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Revascularization guidelines in the United States make no recommendation for PCI, whereas those in Europe recommend coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) first for patients with multivessel disease (class 1); they have a class 2a, level of evidence C indication for PCI in select patients. U.S. and European heart failure guidelines also support guideline directed therapy and CABG in select patients with ejection fractions of 35% or less.

This guidance is based on consensus opinion and the STICH trial, in which CABG plus OMT failed to provide a mortality benefit over OMT alone at 5 years but improved survival at 10 years in the extension STICHES study.

“Medical therapy for heart failure works, and this trial’s results are another important reminder of that,” said Eric Velazquez, MD, who led STICH and was invited to comment on the findings.

Mortality will only get better with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors, he noted, which were not included in the trial. Utilization of ACE inhibitors/ARBs/ARNIs and beta-blockers was similar to STICH and excellent in REVIVED. “They did do a better job in utilization of ICD and CRTs than the STICH trial, and I think that needs to be explored further about the impact of those changes.”

Nevertheless, ischemic cardiomyopathy patients have “unacceptably high mortality,” with the observed mortality about 20% at 3 years and about 35% at 5 years, said Dr. Velazquez, with Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

In most heart failure trials, HF hospitalization drives the primary composite endpoint, but the opposite was true here and in STICH, he observed. “You had twice the risk of dying during the 3.4 years than you did of being hospitalized for heart failure, and ... that is [an important] distinction we must realize is evident in our ischemic cardiomyopathy patients.”

The findings will likely not lead to a change in the guidelines, he added. “I think we continue as status quo for now and get more data.”

Despite the lack of randomized evidence, he cautioned that PCI is increasingly performed in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, with registry data suggesting nearly 60% of patients received the procedure.

Reached for comment, Clyde Yancy, MD, chief of cardiology and vice dean of diversity & inclusion at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said, “For now, the current guidelines are correct. Best application of guideline-directed medical and device therapy is the gold standard for heart failure, and that includes heart failure due to ischemic etiologies.

Detailed results

Between August 2013 and March 2020, REVIVED-BCIS2 enrolled 700 patients at 40 U.K. centers who had an LVEF of 35% or less, extensive CAD (defined by a British Cardiovascular Intervention Society myocardial Jeopardy Score [BCIS-JS] of at least 6), and viability in at least four myocardial segments amenable to PCI. Patients were evenly randomly assigned to individually adjusted pharmacologic and device therapy for heart failure alone or with PCI.

The average age was about 70, only 12.3% women, 344 patients had 2-vessel CAD, and 281 had 3-vessel CAD. The mean LVEF was 27% and median BCIS-JS score 10.

During follow-up, which reached 8.5 years in some patients due to the long enrollment, 31.7% of patients in the PCI group and 32.6% patients in the OMT group died from any cause and 14.7% and 15.3%, respectively, were admitted for heart failure.

LVEF improved by 1.8% at 6 months and 2% at 12 months in the PCI group and by 3.4% and 1.1%, respectively, in the OMT group. The mean between-group difference was –1.6% at 6 months and 0.9% at 12 months.

With regard to quality of life, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score favored the PCI group by 6.5 points at 6 months and by 4.5 points at 12 months, but by 24 months the between-group difference was 2.6 points (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to 5.8). Scores on the EuroQol Group 5-Dimensions 5-Level Questionnaire followed a similar pattern.

Unplanned revascularization was more common in the OMT group (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.13-0.53). Acute myocardial infarction rates were similar in the two groups (HR, 1.01, 95% CI, 0.64-1.60), with the PCI group having more periprocedural infarcts and slightly fewer spontaneous infarcts.

Possible reasons for the discordant results between STICH and REVIVED are the threefold excess mortality within 30 days of CABG, whereas no such early hit occurred with PCI, lead investigator Dr. Perera said in an interview. Medical therapy has also evolved over time and REVIVED enrolled a more “real-world” population, with a median age close to 70 years versus 59 in STICH.
 

‘Modest’ degree of CAD?

An accompanying editorial, however, points out that despite considerable ventricular dysfunction, about half the patients in REVIVED had only 2-vessel disease and a median of two lesions treated.

“This relatively modest degree of coronary artery disease seems unusual for patients selected to undergo revascularization with the hope of restoring or normalizing ventricular function,” writes Ajay Kirtane, MD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital.

He said more details are needed on completeness of the revascularization, severity of stenosis, physiologic assessment of the lesion and, “most importantly, the correlation of stenosis with previous ischemic or viability testing.”

Asked about the editorial, Dr. Perera agreed that information on the type of revascularization and myocardial viability are important and said they hope to share analyses of the only recently unblinded data at the American College of Cardiology meeting next spring. Importantly, about 71% of viability testing was done by cardiac MR and the rest largely by dobutamine stress echocardiogram.

He disagreed, however, that participants had relatively modest CAD based on the 2- or 3-vessel classification and said the median score on the more granular BCIS-JS was 10, with maximum 12 indicating the entire myocardium is supplied by diseased vessels.

The trial also included almost 100 patients with left main disease, a group not included in previous medical therapy trials, including STICH and ISCHEMIA, Dr. Perera noted. “So, I think it was pretty, pretty severe coronary disease but a cohort that was better treated medically.”

George Dangas, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study provides valuable information but also expressed concerns that the chronic heart failure in the trial was much more advanced than the CAD.

Copyright American Heart Association copyright American Heart Association copyright American Heart Association

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

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) does not prolong survival or improve ventricular function, compared with OMT alone, in patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy, according to results from the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial.

The primary composite outcome of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization occurred in 37.2% of the PCI group and 38% of the OMT group (hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .96) over a median of 3.4 years follow-up. The treatment effect was consistent across all subgroups.

There were no significant differences in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 and 12 months.

Quality of life scores favored PCI early on, but there was catch-up over time with medical therapy, and this advantage disappeared by 2 years, principal investigator Divaka Perera, MD, King’s College London, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“The takeaway is that we should not be offering PCI to patients who have stable, well-medicated left ventricular dysfunction,” Dr. Perera told this news organization. “But we should still consider revascularization in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes or who have lots of angina, because they were not included in the trial.”

The study, published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine, provides the first randomized evidence on PCI for ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Revascularization guidelines in the United States make no recommendation for PCI, whereas those in Europe recommend coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) first for patients with multivessel disease (class 1); they have a class 2a, level of evidence C indication for PCI in select patients. U.S. and European heart failure guidelines also support guideline directed therapy and CABG in select patients with ejection fractions of 35% or less.

This guidance is based on consensus opinion and the STICH trial, in which CABG plus OMT failed to provide a mortality benefit over OMT alone at 5 years but improved survival at 10 years in the extension STICHES study.

“Medical therapy for heart failure works, and this trial’s results are another important reminder of that,” said Eric Velazquez, MD, who led STICH and was invited to comment on the findings.

Mortality will only get better with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors, he noted, which were not included in the trial. Utilization of ACE inhibitors/ARBs/ARNIs and beta-blockers was similar to STICH and excellent in REVIVED. “They did do a better job in utilization of ICD and CRTs than the STICH trial, and I think that needs to be explored further about the impact of those changes.”

Nevertheless, ischemic cardiomyopathy patients have “unacceptably high mortality,” with the observed mortality about 20% at 3 years and about 35% at 5 years, said Dr. Velazquez, with Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

In most heart failure trials, HF hospitalization drives the primary composite endpoint, but the opposite was true here and in STICH, he observed. “You had twice the risk of dying during the 3.4 years than you did of being hospitalized for heart failure, and ... that is [an important] distinction we must realize is evident in our ischemic cardiomyopathy patients.”

The findings will likely not lead to a change in the guidelines, he added. “I think we continue as status quo for now and get more data.”

Despite the lack of randomized evidence, he cautioned that PCI is increasingly performed in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, with registry data suggesting nearly 60% of patients received the procedure.

Reached for comment, Clyde Yancy, MD, chief of cardiology and vice dean of diversity & inclusion at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said, “For now, the current guidelines are correct. Best application of guideline-directed medical and device therapy is the gold standard for heart failure, and that includes heart failure due to ischemic etiologies.

Detailed results

Between August 2013 and March 2020, REVIVED-BCIS2 enrolled 700 patients at 40 U.K. centers who had an LVEF of 35% or less, extensive CAD (defined by a British Cardiovascular Intervention Society myocardial Jeopardy Score [BCIS-JS] of at least 6), and viability in at least four myocardial segments amenable to PCI. Patients were evenly randomly assigned to individually adjusted pharmacologic and device therapy for heart failure alone or with PCI.

The average age was about 70, only 12.3% women, 344 patients had 2-vessel CAD, and 281 had 3-vessel CAD. The mean LVEF was 27% and median BCIS-JS score 10.

During follow-up, which reached 8.5 years in some patients due to the long enrollment, 31.7% of patients in the PCI group and 32.6% patients in the OMT group died from any cause and 14.7% and 15.3%, respectively, were admitted for heart failure.

LVEF improved by 1.8% at 6 months and 2% at 12 months in the PCI group and by 3.4% and 1.1%, respectively, in the OMT group. The mean between-group difference was –1.6% at 6 months and 0.9% at 12 months.

With regard to quality of life, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score favored the PCI group by 6.5 points at 6 months and by 4.5 points at 12 months, but by 24 months the between-group difference was 2.6 points (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to 5.8). Scores on the EuroQol Group 5-Dimensions 5-Level Questionnaire followed a similar pattern.

Unplanned revascularization was more common in the OMT group (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.13-0.53). Acute myocardial infarction rates were similar in the two groups (HR, 1.01, 95% CI, 0.64-1.60), with the PCI group having more periprocedural infarcts and slightly fewer spontaneous infarcts.

Possible reasons for the discordant results between STICH and REVIVED are the threefold excess mortality within 30 days of CABG, whereas no such early hit occurred with PCI, lead investigator Dr. Perera said in an interview. Medical therapy has also evolved over time and REVIVED enrolled a more “real-world” population, with a median age close to 70 years versus 59 in STICH.
 

‘Modest’ degree of CAD?

An accompanying editorial, however, points out that despite considerable ventricular dysfunction, about half the patients in REVIVED had only 2-vessel disease and a median of two lesions treated.

“This relatively modest degree of coronary artery disease seems unusual for patients selected to undergo revascularization with the hope of restoring or normalizing ventricular function,” writes Ajay Kirtane, MD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital.

He said more details are needed on completeness of the revascularization, severity of stenosis, physiologic assessment of the lesion and, “most importantly, the correlation of stenosis with previous ischemic or viability testing.”

Asked about the editorial, Dr. Perera agreed that information on the type of revascularization and myocardial viability are important and said they hope to share analyses of the only recently unblinded data at the American College of Cardiology meeting next spring. Importantly, about 71% of viability testing was done by cardiac MR and the rest largely by dobutamine stress echocardiogram.

He disagreed, however, that participants had relatively modest CAD based on the 2- or 3-vessel classification and said the median score on the more granular BCIS-JS was 10, with maximum 12 indicating the entire myocardium is supplied by diseased vessels.

The trial also included almost 100 patients with left main disease, a group not included in previous medical therapy trials, including STICH and ISCHEMIA, Dr. Perera noted. “So, I think it was pretty, pretty severe coronary disease but a cohort that was better treated medically.”

George Dangas, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study provides valuable information but also expressed concerns that the chronic heart failure in the trial was much more advanced than the CAD.

Copyright American Heart Association copyright American Heart Association copyright American Heart Association

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

Video-based artificial intelligence provided a more accurate and consistent reading of echocardiograms than did experienced sonographers in a blinded trial, a result suggesting that this technology is no longer experimental.

“We are planning to deploy this at Cedars, so this is essentially ready for use,” said David Ouyang, MD, who is affiliated with the Cedars-Sinai Medical School and is an instructor of cardiology at the University of California, both in Los Angeles.

The primary outcome of this trial, called EchoNet-RCT, was the proportion of cases in which cardiologists changed the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reading by more than 5%. They were blinded to the origin of the reports.

This endpoint was reached in 27.2% of reports generated by sonographers but just 16.8% of reports generated by AI, a mean difference of 10.5% (P < .001).

The AI tested in the trial is called EchoNet-Dynamic. It employs a video-based deep learning algorithm that permits beat-by-beat evaluation of ejection fraction. The specifics of this system were described in a study published 2 years ago in Nature. In that evaluation of the model training set, the absolute error rate was 6% in the more than 10,000 annotated echocardiogram videos.
 

Echo-Net is first blinded AI echo trial

Although AI is already being employed for image evaluation in many areas of medicine, the EchoNet-RCT study “is the first blinded trial of AI in cardiology,” Dr. Ouyang said. Indeed, he noted that no prior study has even been randomized.

After a run-in period, 3,495 echocardiograms were randomizly assigned to be read by AI or by a sonographer. The reports generated by these two approaches were then evaluated by the blinded cardiologists. The sonographers and the cardiologists participating in this study had a mean of 14.1 years and 12.7 years of experience, respectively.

Each reading by both sonographers and AI was based on a single beat, but this presumably was a relative handicap for the potential advantage of AI technology, which is capable of evaluating ejection fraction across multiple cardiac cycles. The evaluation of multiple cycles has been shown previously to improve accuracy, but it is tedious and not commonly performed in routine practice, according to Dr. Ouyang.
 

AI favored for all major endpoints

The superiority of AI was calculated after noninferiority was demonstrated. AI also showed superiority for the secondary safety outcome which involved a test-retest evaluation. Historical AI and sonographer echocardiogram reports were again blindly assessed. Although the retest variability was lower for both (6.29% vs. 7.23%), the difference was still highly significant in favor of AI (P < .001)

The relative efficiency of AI to sonographer assessment was also tested and showed meaningful reductions in work time. While AI eliminates the labor of the sonographer completely (0 vs. a median of 119 seconds, P < .001), it was also associated with a highly significant reduction in median cardiologist time spent on echo evaluation (54 vs. 64 seconds, P < .001).

Assuming that AI is integrated into the routine workflow of a busy center, AI “could be very effective at not only improving the quality of echo reading output but also increasing efficiencies in time and effort spent by sonographers and cardiologists by simplifying otherwise tedious but important tasks,” Dr. Ouyang said.

The trial enrolled a relatively typical population. The median age was 66 years, 57% were male, and comorbidities such as diabetes and chronic kidney disease were common. When AI was compared with sonographer evaluation in groups stratified by these variables as well as by race, image quality, and location of the evaluation (inpatient vs. outpatient), the advantage of AI was consistent.

Cardiologists cannot detect AI-read echos

Identifying potential limitations of this study, James D. Thomas, MD, professor of medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, pointed out that it was a single-center trial, and he questioned a potential bias from cardiologists able to guess accurately which of the reports they were evaluating were generated by AI.

Dr. Ouyang acknowledged that this study was limited to patients at UCLA, but he pointed out that the training model was developed at Stanford (Calif.) University, so there were two sets of patients involved in testing the machine learning algorithm. He also noted that it was exceptionally large, providing a robust dataset.

As for the bias, this was evaluated as predefined endpoint.

“We asked the cardiologists to tell us [whether] they knew which reports were generated by AI,” Dr. Ouyang said. In 43% of cases, they reported they were not sure. However, when they did express confidence that the report was generated by AI, they were correct in only 32% of the cases and incorrect in 24%. Dr. Ouyang suggested these numbers argue against a substantial role for a bias affecting the trial results.

Dr. Thomas, who has an interest in the role of AI for cardiology, cautioned that there are “technical, privacy, commercial, maintenance, and regulatory barriers” that must be circumvented before AI is widely incorporated into clinical practice, but he praised this blinded trial for advancing the field. Even accounting for any limitations, he clearly shared Dr. Ouyang’s enthusiasm about the future of AI for EF assessment.

Dr. Ouyang reports financial relationships with EchoIQ, Ultromics, and InVision. Dr. Thomas reports financial relationships with Abbott, GE, egnite, EchoIQ, and Caption Health.

Video-based artificial intelligence provided a more accurate and consistent reading of echocardiograms than did experienced sonographers in a blinded trial, a result suggesting that this technology is no longer experimental.

“We are planning to deploy this at Cedars, so this is essentially ready for use,” said David Ouyang, MD, who is affiliated with the Cedars-Sinai Medical School and is an instructor of cardiology at the University of California, both in Los Angeles.

The primary outcome of this trial, called EchoNet-RCT, was the proportion of cases in which cardiologists changed the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reading by more than 5%. They were blinded to the origin of the reports.

This endpoint was reached in 27.2% of reports generated by sonographers but just 16.8% of reports generated by AI, a mean difference of 10.5% (P < .001).

The AI tested in the trial is called EchoNet-Dynamic. It employs a video-based deep learning algorithm that permits beat-by-beat evaluation of ejection fraction. The specifics of this system were described in a study published 2 years ago in Nature. In that evaluation of the model training set, the absolute error rate was 6% in the more than 10,000 annotated echocardiogram videos.
 

Echo-Net is first blinded AI echo trial

Although AI is already being employed for image evaluation in many areas of medicine, the EchoNet-RCT study “is the first blinded trial of AI in cardiology,” Dr. Ouyang said. Indeed, he noted that no prior study has even been randomized.

After a run-in period, 3,495 echocardiograms were randomizly assigned to be read by AI or by a sonographer. The reports generated by these two approaches were then evaluated by the blinded cardiologists. The sonographers and the cardiologists participating in this study had a mean of 14.1 years and 12.7 years of experience, respectively.

Each reading by both sonographers and AI was based on a single beat, but this presumably was a relative handicap for the potential advantage of AI technology, which is capable of evaluating ejection fraction across multiple cardiac cycles. The evaluation of multiple cycles has been shown previously to improve accuracy, but it is tedious and not commonly performed in routine practice, according to Dr. Ouyang.
 

AI favored for all major endpoints

The superiority of AI was calculated after noninferiority was demonstrated. AI also showed superiority for the secondary safety outcome which involved a test-retest evaluation. Historical AI and sonographer echocardiogram reports were again blindly assessed. Although the retest variability was lower for both (6.29% vs. 7.23%), the difference was still highly significant in favor of AI (P < .001)

The relative efficiency of AI to sonographer assessment was also tested and showed meaningful reductions in work time. While AI eliminates the labor of the sonographer completely (0 vs. a median of 119 seconds, P < .001), it was also associated with a highly significant reduction in median cardiologist time spent on echo evaluation (54 vs. 64 seconds, P < .001).

Assuming that AI is integrated into the routine workflow of a busy center, AI “could be very effective at not only improving the quality of echo reading output but also increasing efficiencies in time and effort spent by sonographers and cardiologists by simplifying otherwise tedious but important tasks,” Dr. Ouyang said.

The trial enrolled a relatively typical population. The median age was 66 years, 57% were male, and comorbidities such as diabetes and chronic kidney disease were common. When AI was compared with sonographer evaluation in groups stratified by these variables as well as by race, image quality, and location of the evaluation (inpatient vs. outpatient), the advantage of AI was consistent.

Cardiologists cannot detect AI-read echos

Identifying potential limitations of this study, James D. Thomas, MD, professor of medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, pointed out that it was a single-center trial, and he questioned a potential bias from cardiologists able to guess accurately which of the reports they were evaluating were generated by AI.

Dr. Ouyang acknowledged that this study was limited to patients at UCLA, but he pointed out that the training model was developed at Stanford (Calif.) University, so there were two sets of patients involved in testing the machine learning algorithm. He also noted that it was exceptionally large, providing a robust dataset.

As for the bias, this was evaluated as predefined endpoint.

“We asked the cardiologists to tell us [whether] they knew which reports were generated by AI,” Dr. Ouyang said. In 43% of cases, they reported they were not sure. However, when they did express confidence that the report was generated by AI, they were correct in only 32% of the cases and incorrect in 24%. Dr. Ouyang suggested these numbers argue against a substantial role for a bias affecting the trial results.

Dr. Thomas, who has an interest in the role of AI for cardiology, cautioned that there are “technical, privacy, commercial, maintenance, and regulatory barriers” that must be circumvented before AI is widely incorporated into clinical practice, but he praised this blinded trial for advancing the field. Even accounting for any limitations, he clearly shared Dr. Ouyang’s enthusiasm about the future of AI for EF assessment.

Dr. Ouyang reports financial relationships with EchoIQ, Ultromics, and InVision. Dr. Thomas reports financial relationships with Abbott, GE, egnite, EchoIQ, and Caption Health.

Video-based artificial intelligence provided a more accurate and consistent reading of echocardiograms than did experienced sonographers in a blinded trial, a result suggesting that this technology is no longer experimental.

“We are planning to deploy this at Cedars, so this is essentially ready for use,” said David Ouyang, MD, who is affiliated with the Cedars-Sinai Medical School and is an instructor of cardiology at the University of California, both in Los Angeles.

The primary outcome of this trial, called EchoNet-RCT, was the proportion of cases in which cardiologists changed the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reading by more than 5%. They were blinded to the origin of the reports.

This endpoint was reached in 27.2% of reports generated by sonographers but just 16.8% of reports generated by AI, a mean difference of 10.5% (P < .001).

The AI tested in the trial is called EchoNet-Dynamic. It employs a video-based deep learning algorithm that permits beat-by-beat evaluation of ejection fraction. The specifics of this system were described in a study published 2 years ago in Nature. In that evaluation of the model training set, the absolute error rate was 6% in the more than 10,000 annotated echocardiogram videos.
 

Echo-Net is first blinded AI echo trial

Although AI is already being employed for image evaluation in many areas of medicine, the EchoNet-RCT study “is the first blinded trial of AI in cardiology,” Dr. Ouyang said. Indeed, he noted that no prior study has even been randomized.

After a run-in period, 3,495 echocardiograms were randomizly assigned to be read by AI or by a sonographer. The reports generated by these two approaches were then evaluated by the blinded cardiologists. The sonographers and the cardiologists participating in this study had a mean of 14.1 years and 12.7 years of experience, respectively.

Each reading by both sonographers and AI was based on a single beat, but this presumably was a relative handicap for the potential advantage of AI technology, which is capable of evaluating ejection fraction across multiple cardiac cycles. The evaluation of multiple cycles has been shown previously to improve accuracy, but it is tedious and not commonly performed in routine practice, according to Dr. Ouyang.
 

AI favored for all major endpoints

The superiority of AI was calculated after noninferiority was demonstrated. AI also showed superiority for the secondary safety outcome which involved a test-retest evaluation. Historical AI and sonographer echocardiogram reports were again blindly assessed. Although the retest variability was lower for both (6.29% vs. 7.23%), the difference was still highly significant in favor of AI (P < .001)

The relative efficiency of AI to sonographer assessment was also tested and showed meaningful reductions in work time. While AI eliminates the labor of the sonographer completely (0 vs. a median of 119 seconds, P < .001), it was also associated with a highly significant reduction in median cardiologist time spent on echo evaluation (54 vs. 64 seconds, P < .001).

Assuming that AI is integrated into the routine workflow of a busy center, AI “could be very effective at not only improving the quality of echo reading output but also increasing efficiencies in time and effort spent by sonographers and cardiologists by simplifying otherwise tedious but important tasks,” Dr. Ouyang said.

The trial enrolled a relatively typical population. The median age was 66 years, 57% were male, and comorbidities such as diabetes and chronic kidney disease were common. When AI was compared with sonographer evaluation in groups stratified by these variables as well as by race, image quality, and location of the evaluation (inpatient vs. outpatient), the advantage of AI was consistent.

Cardiologists cannot detect AI-read echos

Identifying potential limitations of this study, James D. Thomas, MD, professor of medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, pointed out that it was a single-center trial, and he questioned a potential bias from cardiologists able to guess accurately which of the reports they were evaluating were generated by AI.

Dr. Ouyang acknowledged that this study was limited to patients at UCLA, but he pointed out that the training model was developed at Stanford (Calif.) University, so there were two sets of patients involved in testing the machine learning algorithm. He also noted that it was exceptionally large, providing a robust dataset.

As for the bias, this was evaluated as predefined endpoint.

“We asked the cardiologists to tell us [whether] they knew which reports were generated by AI,” Dr. Ouyang said. In 43% of cases, they reported they were not sure. However, when they did express confidence that the report was generated by AI, they were correct in only 32% of the cases and incorrect in 24%. Dr. Ouyang suggested these numbers argue against a substantial role for a bias affecting the trial results.

Dr. Thomas, who has an interest in the role of AI for cardiology, cautioned that there are “technical, privacy, commercial, maintenance, and regulatory barriers” that must be circumvented before AI is widely incorporated into clinical practice, but he praised this blinded trial for advancing the field. Even accounting for any limitations, he clearly shared Dr. Ouyang’s enthusiasm about the future of AI for EF assessment.

Dr. Ouyang reports financial relationships with EchoIQ, Ultromics, and InVision. Dr. Thomas reports financial relationships with Abbott, GE, egnite, EchoIQ, and Caption Health.

A decades-old drug, added to standard loop diuretics, could potentially help more volume-overloaded patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) to be discharged from the hospital ‘dry,’ a randomized trial suggests.

Those who received intravenous acetazolamide, compared with placebo, on top of a usual-care IV loop diuretic in the multicenter study were 46% more likely to achieve “successful” decongestion – that is, to leave the hospital without lingering signs of volume overload.

The trial, with more than 500 patients, is the first “to unequivocally show benefit of any drug, namely acetazolamide, on major heart failure outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure,” said Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, at a media briefing during the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona.

The patients who received acetazolamide “also had a shorter hospital stay, having a major impact on not only quality of life, but also health care expenditures,” said Dr. Mullens, who leads the steering committee of the trial conducted in Belgium. He presented the results of Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) at ESC 2022 and is lead author on its same-day publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complementary effects?

Current guidelines on managing volume-overloaded patients with ADHF owe a lot to the 2011 DOSE trial, which provided some of the first randomized-trial evidence in an arena led largely by clinical tradition. The advantages it saw with the high-dose furosemide strategy helped it enter into clinical practice, but even in DOSE, the strategy fell short of achieving full decongestion for many patients.

The ADVOR report describes acetazolamide as a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that reduces sodium recovery in the proximal tubule, similar to the function of loop diuretics in the loop of Henle. Acting in different segments of the nephron, acetazolamide and loop diuretics like furosemide may potentially have complementary effects that improve diuretic “efficiency.”

The difference in decongestion effect between the acetazolamide and placebo groups grew consistently from baseline to day 3. “There was an increase in treatment effect over consecutive days,” Dr. Mullens said. “This highlights the importance of treating congestion both early and aggressively. You cannot catch up,” he said. “If you don’t treat them aggressively initially, you can never get them dry.”

Of the trial’s 519 patients, 42.2% of those assigned to acetazolamide and 30.5% of those in the control group were judged to have had successful decongestion at 3 days, the primary endpoint. Successful decongestion meant they had no remaining signs of volume overload, such as edema, pleural effusion, or ascites.

Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, the 3-month rates of death from any cause or rehospitalization for heart failure were similar at 29.7% in the acetazolamide group and 27.8% for the control group. All-cause mortality in an exploratory analysis was also statistically comparable at 15.2% and 12%, respectively.
 

Decongestion and clinical outcomes

The study is noteworthy “because it tests a readily available diuretic, acetazolamide, that is not used widely for ADHF,” and showed a benefit at 3 days from adding the drug to a prescribed loop diuretic regimen, Mark H. Drazner, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

The benefit didn’t translate into improved clinical outcomes; indeed, mortality at 3 months was numerically higher in the acetazolamide group, observed Dr. Drazner, who is unaffiliated with the study.

Although ADVOR isn’t powered for mortality, he acknowledged, “one would expect the enhanced decongestion would have led to improved outcomes,” or at least a signal of such improvement.

It’s worth noting, Dr. Drazner added, “that the strategy tested was to add acetazolamide up front, on day 1, before loop diuretics were maximized.”

Indeed, the published report says all patients received IV loop diuretics at double the oral maintenance dose, given the first day in a single bolus immediately on randomization. The dose was split into two doses, given at least 6 hours apart, on day 2 and day 3. “The bolus of acetazolamide or matching placebo was administered simultaneously with the first dose of loop diuretics each day,” it states.

Although the protocol called for one loop diuretic dose on day 1, typically in practice patients would be dosed twice or three times each day, Dr. Drazner observed. Once-daily IV diuretic dosing may be less effective than a 2- or 3-times-per-day schedule, he said. As a result, acetazolamide might achieve faster decongestion after it is added to the loop diuretic, a benefit that would not otherwise be available in practice.
 

Messages for practice

Before this trial, Dr. Drazner said, he would usually add the thiazide diuretic metolazone as needed “to augment diuresis beyond maximum loop diuretics.” After ADVOR, “I’d be willing to try acetazolamide in that setting, recognizing I also don’t know the impact of metolazone on outcomes.”

Still, he would restrict either drug to patients who fail on maximal loop diuretics “rather than adding it routinely and up front, before the loop diuretics are maximized.”

More data are needed, Dr. Drazner said, including from a larger clinical-outcomes trial to confirm the strategy’s safety, before “the up-front addition of acetazolamide to submaximal loop diuretics doses” could become part of standard practice in ADHF.

Given the data so far, including those from ADVOR, “treatment with loop diuretics alone is probably sufficient for successful decongestion” among patients likely to respond to the drugs: that is, “those who are younger, those who have less severe or new-onset heart failure, and those who have normal kidney function,” states an editorial accompanying the published report.

“However, for the large group of patients who have some degree of diuretic resistance, or for those who have an inadequate initial response to loop-diuretic therapy, these data suggest the use of acetazolamide as a reasonable adjunct to achieving more rapid decongestion,” writes G. Michael Felker, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C. Dr. Felker was lead author on the DOSE primary publication.

ADVOR entered volume-overloaded patients with ADHF and elevated natriuretic peptide levels who had been on oral maintenance with at least 40 mg of furosemide, or equivalent doses of other loop diuretics, for at least a month before randomization.

They were assigned to either IV acetazolamide at 500 mg once daily (n = 259) or placebo (n = 260) on top of an IV loop diuretic, at 27 centers in Belgium.

The risk ratio for the primary endpoint, successful decongestion after 3 days, was 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.82, P < .001) for the acetazolamide versus placebo groups.

In exploratory analyses, acetazolamide versus placebo, the RR for successful decongestion among patients who survived to discharge was increased at 1.27 (95% CI, 1.13-1.43). The hazard ratio for death from any cause at 3 months was not significant at 1.28 (95% CI, 0.78-2.05), nor was the HR for heart-failure rehospitalization at 3 months, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.71-1.59).

The role of SGLT2 inhibitors

ADVOR, understandably but maybe problematically, excluded patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors. The drugs have diuretic effects, among other useful properties, and became core therapy for a range of heart failure types after the trial was designed.

“This exclusion presents a conundrum for applying these results in contemporary clinical care,” Dr. Felker writes. For example, “the data supporting the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors across the broad spectrum of patients with heart failure are now overwhelming, and most patients who are hospitalized for heart failure have a clear indication for these agents.”

Given that no ADVOR patients were on the drugs, his editorial states, “we can only speculate as to the efficacy of acetazolamide in patients treated with background SGLT2 inhibitors, which could potentially be additive, subadditive, or synergistic.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors will likely “be used in ADHF in the future, based on studies such as EMPULSE. It will be important to know whether SGLT2 inhibitors change the risk-benefit of also giving acetazolamide,” Dr. Drazner said when interviewed.

“I don’t think there’s any safety issue with regards to the combination of SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide,” Dr. Mullens said. Their diuretic effects are likely to be additive, he proposed.

“Although SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide both exert natriuretic and diuretic effects on the proximal tubules, their mode of action and potency differ substantially,” the published report states.

ADVOR is funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Abbott Fund, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other authors are at NEJM.org. Dr. Drazner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Felker discloses serving as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, Cytokinetics, Novartis, Reprieve, and Sequana.

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

A decades-old drug, added to standard loop diuretics, could potentially help more volume-overloaded patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) to be discharged from the hospital ‘dry,’ a randomized trial suggests.

Those who received intravenous acetazolamide, compared with placebo, on top of a usual-care IV loop diuretic in the multicenter study were 46% more likely to achieve “successful” decongestion – that is, to leave the hospital without lingering signs of volume overload.

The trial, with more than 500 patients, is the first “to unequivocally show benefit of any drug, namely acetazolamide, on major heart failure outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure,” said Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, at a media briefing during the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona.

The patients who received acetazolamide “also had a shorter hospital stay, having a major impact on not only quality of life, but also health care expenditures,” said Dr. Mullens, who leads the steering committee of the trial conducted in Belgium. He presented the results of Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) at ESC 2022 and is lead author on its same-day publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complementary effects?

Current guidelines on managing volume-overloaded patients with ADHF owe a lot to the 2011 DOSE trial, which provided some of the first randomized-trial evidence in an arena led largely by clinical tradition. The advantages it saw with the high-dose furosemide strategy helped it enter into clinical practice, but even in DOSE, the strategy fell short of achieving full decongestion for many patients.

The ADVOR report describes acetazolamide as a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that reduces sodium recovery in the proximal tubule, similar to the function of loop diuretics in the loop of Henle. Acting in different segments of the nephron, acetazolamide and loop diuretics like furosemide may potentially have complementary effects that improve diuretic “efficiency.”

The difference in decongestion effect between the acetazolamide and placebo groups grew consistently from baseline to day 3. “There was an increase in treatment effect over consecutive days,” Dr. Mullens said. “This highlights the importance of treating congestion both early and aggressively. You cannot catch up,” he said. “If you don’t treat them aggressively initially, you can never get them dry.”

Of the trial’s 519 patients, 42.2% of those assigned to acetazolamide and 30.5% of those in the control group were judged to have had successful decongestion at 3 days, the primary endpoint. Successful decongestion meant they had no remaining signs of volume overload, such as edema, pleural effusion, or ascites.

Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, the 3-month rates of death from any cause or rehospitalization for heart failure were similar at 29.7% in the acetazolamide group and 27.8% for the control group. All-cause mortality in an exploratory analysis was also statistically comparable at 15.2% and 12%, respectively.
 

Decongestion and clinical outcomes

The study is noteworthy “because it tests a readily available diuretic, acetazolamide, that is not used widely for ADHF,” and showed a benefit at 3 days from adding the drug to a prescribed loop diuretic regimen, Mark H. Drazner, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

The benefit didn’t translate into improved clinical outcomes; indeed, mortality at 3 months was numerically higher in the acetazolamide group, observed Dr. Drazner, who is unaffiliated with the study.

Although ADVOR isn’t powered for mortality, he acknowledged, “one would expect the enhanced decongestion would have led to improved outcomes,” or at least a signal of such improvement.

It’s worth noting, Dr. Drazner added, “that the strategy tested was to add acetazolamide up front, on day 1, before loop diuretics were maximized.”

Indeed, the published report says all patients received IV loop diuretics at double the oral maintenance dose, given the first day in a single bolus immediately on randomization. The dose was split into two doses, given at least 6 hours apart, on day 2 and day 3. “The bolus of acetazolamide or matching placebo was administered simultaneously with the first dose of loop diuretics each day,” it states.

Although the protocol called for one loop diuretic dose on day 1, typically in practice patients would be dosed twice or three times each day, Dr. Drazner observed. Once-daily IV diuretic dosing may be less effective than a 2- or 3-times-per-day schedule, he said. As a result, acetazolamide might achieve faster decongestion after it is added to the loop diuretic, a benefit that would not otherwise be available in practice.
 

Messages for practice

Before this trial, Dr. Drazner said, he would usually add the thiazide diuretic metolazone as needed “to augment diuresis beyond maximum loop diuretics.” After ADVOR, “I’d be willing to try acetazolamide in that setting, recognizing I also don’t know the impact of metolazone on outcomes.”

Still, he would restrict either drug to patients who fail on maximal loop diuretics “rather than adding it routinely and up front, before the loop diuretics are maximized.”

More data are needed, Dr. Drazner said, including from a larger clinical-outcomes trial to confirm the strategy’s safety, before “the up-front addition of acetazolamide to submaximal loop diuretics doses” could become part of standard practice in ADHF.

Given the data so far, including those from ADVOR, “treatment with loop diuretics alone is probably sufficient for successful decongestion” among patients likely to respond to the drugs: that is, “those who are younger, those who have less severe or new-onset heart failure, and those who have normal kidney function,” states an editorial accompanying the published report.

“However, for the large group of patients who have some degree of diuretic resistance, or for those who have an inadequate initial response to loop-diuretic therapy, these data suggest the use of acetazolamide as a reasonable adjunct to achieving more rapid decongestion,” writes G. Michael Felker, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C. Dr. Felker was lead author on the DOSE primary publication.

ADVOR entered volume-overloaded patients with ADHF and elevated natriuretic peptide levels who had been on oral maintenance with at least 40 mg of furosemide, or equivalent doses of other loop diuretics, for at least a month before randomization.

They were assigned to either IV acetazolamide at 500 mg once daily (n = 259) or placebo (n = 260) on top of an IV loop diuretic, at 27 centers in Belgium.

The risk ratio for the primary endpoint, successful decongestion after 3 days, was 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.82, P < .001) for the acetazolamide versus placebo groups.

In exploratory analyses, acetazolamide versus placebo, the RR for successful decongestion among patients who survived to discharge was increased at 1.27 (95% CI, 1.13-1.43). The hazard ratio for death from any cause at 3 months was not significant at 1.28 (95% CI, 0.78-2.05), nor was the HR for heart-failure rehospitalization at 3 months, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.71-1.59).

The role of SGLT2 inhibitors

ADVOR, understandably but maybe problematically, excluded patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors. The drugs have diuretic effects, among other useful properties, and became core therapy for a range of heart failure types after the trial was designed.

“This exclusion presents a conundrum for applying these results in contemporary clinical care,” Dr. Felker writes. For example, “the data supporting the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors across the broad spectrum of patients with heart failure are now overwhelming, and most patients who are hospitalized for heart failure have a clear indication for these agents.”

Given that no ADVOR patients were on the drugs, his editorial states, “we can only speculate as to the efficacy of acetazolamide in patients treated with background SGLT2 inhibitors, which could potentially be additive, subadditive, or synergistic.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors will likely “be used in ADHF in the future, based on studies such as EMPULSE. It will be important to know whether SGLT2 inhibitors change the risk-benefit of also giving acetazolamide,” Dr. Drazner said when interviewed.

“I don’t think there’s any safety issue with regards to the combination of SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide,” Dr. Mullens said. Their diuretic effects are likely to be additive, he proposed.

“Although SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide both exert natriuretic and diuretic effects on the proximal tubules, their mode of action and potency differ substantially,” the published report states.

ADVOR is funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Abbott Fund, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other authors are at NEJM.org. Dr. Drazner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Felker discloses serving as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, Cytokinetics, Novartis, Reprieve, and Sequana.

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

A decades-old drug, added to standard loop diuretics, could potentially help more volume-overloaded patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) to be discharged from the hospital ‘dry,’ a randomized trial suggests.

Those who received intravenous acetazolamide, compared with placebo, on top of a usual-care IV loop diuretic in the multicenter study were 46% more likely to achieve “successful” decongestion – that is, to leave the hospital without lingering signs of volume overload.

The trial, with more than 500 patients, is the first “to unequivocally show benefit of any drug, namely acetazolamide, on major heart failure outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure,” said Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, at a media briefing during the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona.

The patients who received acetazolamide “also had a shorter hospital stay, having a major impact on not only quality of life, but also health care expenditures,” said Dr. Mullens, who leads the steering committee of the trial conducted in Belgium. He presented the results of Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) at ESC 2022 and is lead author on its same-day publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complementary effects?

Current guidelines on managing volume-overloaded patients with ADHF owe a lot to the 2011 DOSE trial, which provided some of the first randomized-trial evidence in an arena led largely by clinical tradition. The advantages it saw with the high-dose furosemide strategy helped it enter into clinical practice, but even in DOSE, the strategy fell short of achieving full decongestion for many patients.

The ADVOR report describes acetazolamide as a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that reduces sodium recovery in the proximal tubule, similar to the function of loop diuretics in the loop of Henle. Acting in different segments of the nephron, acetazolamide and loop diuretics like furosemide may potentially have complementary effects that improve diuretic “efficiency.”

The difference in decongestion effect between the acetazolamide and placebo groups grew consistently from baseline to day 3. “There was an increase in treatment effect over consecutive days,” Dr. Mullens said. “This highlights the importance of treating congestion both early and aggressively. You cannot catch up,” he said. “If you don’t treat them aggressively initially, you can never get them dry.”

Of the trial’s 519 patients, 42.2% of those assigned to acetazolamide and 30.5% of those in the control group were judged to have had successful decongestion at 3 days, the primary endpoint. Successful decongestion meant they had no remaining signs of volume overload, such as edema, pleural effusion, or ascites.

Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, the 3-month rates of death from any cause or rehospitalization for heart failure were similar at 29.7% in the acetazolamide group and 27.8% for the control group. All-cause mortality in an exploratory analysis was also statistically comparable at 15.2% and 12%, respectively.
 

Decongestion and clinical outcomes

The study is noteworthy “because it tests a readily available diuretic, acetazolamide, that is not used widely for ADHF,” and showed a benefit at 3 days from adding the drug to a prescribed loop diuretic regimen, Mark H. Drazner, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

The benefit didn’t translate into improved clinical outcomes; indeed, mortality at 3 months was numerically higher in the acetazolamide group, observed Dr. Drazner, who is unaffiliated with the study.

Although ADVOR isn’t powered for mortality, he acknowledged, “one would expect the enhanced decongestion would have led to improved outcomes,” or at least a signal of such improvement.

It’s worth noting, Dr. Drazner added, “that the strategy tested was to add acetazolamide up front, on day 1, before loop diuretics were maximized.”

Indeed, the published report says all patients received IV loop diuretics at double the oral maintenance dose, given the first day in a single bolus immediately on randomization. The dose was split into two doses, given at least 6 hours apart, on day 2 and day 3. “The bolus of acetazolamide or matching placebo was administered simultaneously with the first dose of loop diuretics each day,” it states.

Although the protocol called for one loop diuretic dose on day 1, typically in practice patients would be dosed twice or three times each day, Dr. Drazner observed. Once-daily IV diuretic dosing may be less effective than a 2- or 3-times-per-day schedule, he said. As a result, acetazolamide might achieve faster decongestion after it is added to the loop diuretic, a benefit that would not otherwise be available in practice.
 

Messages for practice

Before this trial, Dr. Drazner said, he would usually add the thiazide diuretic metolazone as needed “to augment diuresis beyond maximum loop diuretics.” After ADVOR, “I’d be willing to try acetazolamide in that setting, recognizing I also don’t know the impact of metolazone on outcomes.”

Still, he would restrict either drug to patients who fail on maximal loop diuretics “rather than adding it routinely and up front, before the loop diuretics are maximized.”

More data are needed, Dr. Drazner said, including from a larger clinical-outcomes trial to confirm the strategy’s safety, before “the up-front addition of acetazolamide to submaximal loop diuretics doses” could become part of standard practice in ADHF.

Given the data so far, including those from ADVOR, “treatment with loop diuretics alone is probably sufficient for successful decongestion” among patients likely to respond to the drugs: that is, “those who are younger, those who have less severe or new-onset heart failure, and those who have normal kidney function,” states an editorial accompanying the published report.

“However, for the large group of patients who have some degree of diuretic resistance, or for those who have an inadequate initial response to loop-diuretic therapy, these data suggest the use of acetazolamide as a reasonable adjunct to achieving more rapid decongestion,” writes G. Michael Felker, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C. Dr. Felker was lead author on the DOSE primary publication.

ADVOR entered volume-overloaded patients with ADHF and elevated natriuretic peptide levels who had been on oral maintenance with at least 40 mg of furosemide, or equivalent doses of other loop diuretics, for at least a month before randomization.

They were assigned to either IV acetazolamide at 500 mg once daily (n = 259) or placebo (n = 260) on top of an IV loop diuretic, at 27 centers in Belgium.

The risk ratio for the primary endpoint, successful decongestion after 3 days, was 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.82, P < .001) for the acetazolamide versus placebo groups.

In exploratory analyses, acetazolamide versus placebo, the RR for successful decongestion among patients who survived to discharge was increased at 1.27 (95% CI, 1.13-1.43). The hazard ratio for death from any cause at 3 months was not significant at 1.28 (95% CI, 0.78-2.05), nor was the HR for heart-failure rehospitalization at 3 months, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.71-1.59).

The role of SGLT2 inhibitors

ADVOR, understandably but maybe problematically, excluded patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors. The drugs have diuretic effects, among other useful properties, and became core therapy for a range of heart failure types after the trial was designed.

“This exclusion presents a conundrum for applying these results in contemporary clinical care,” Dr. Felker writes. For example, “the data supporting the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors across the broad spectrum of patients with heart failure are now overwhelming, and most patients who are hospitalized for heart failure have a clear indication for these agents.”

Given that no ADVOR patients were on the drugs, his editorial states, “we can only speculate as to the efficacy of acetazolamide in patients treated with background SGLT2 inhibitors, which could potentially be additive, subadditive, or synergistic.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors will likely “be used in ADHF in the future, based on studies such as EMPULSE. It will be important to know whether SGLT2 inhibitors change the risk-benefit of also giving acetazolamide,” Dr. Drazner said when interviewed.

“I don’t think there’s any safety issue with regards to the combination of SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide,” Dr. Mullens said. Their diuretic effects are likely to be additive, he proposed.

“Although SGLT2 inhibitors and acetazolamide both exert natriuretic and diuretic effects on the proximal tubules, their mode of action and potency differ substantially,” the published report states.

ADVOR is funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Abbott Fund, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other authors are at NEJM.org. Dr. Drazner has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Felker discloses serving as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, Cytokinetics, Novartis, Reprieve, and Sequana.

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