Peripheral Vascular Disorders

Peripheral neuropathy is common in U.S. adults and is associated with an increased risk of death, even in the absence of diabetes, researchers reported  in Annals of Internal Medicine.

©mheim3011/thinkstockphotos.com

The findings do not necessarily mean that doctors should implement broader screening for peripheral neuropathy at this time, however, the investigators said.

“Doctors don’t typically screen for peripheral neuropathy in persons without diabetes,” senior author Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“Our study shows that peripheral neuropathy – as assessed by decreased sensation in the feet – is common, even in people without diabetes,” Dr. Selvin explained. “It is not yet clear whether we should be screening people without diabetes since we don’t have clear treatments, but our study does suggest that this condition is an underrecognized condition that is associated with poor outcomes.”

Patients with diabetes typically undergo annual foot examinations that include screening for peripheral neuropathy, but that’s not the case for most adults in the absence of diabetes.

“I don’t know if we can make the jump that we should be screening people without diabetes,” said first author Caitlin W. Hicks, MD, assistant professor of surgery, division of vascular surgery and endovascular therapy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Right now, we do not exactly know what it means in the people without diabetes, and we definitely do not know how to treat it. So, screening for it will tell us that this person has this and is at higher risk of mortality than someone who doesn’t, but we do not know what to do with that information yet.”

Nevertheless, the study raises the question of whether physicians should pay more attention to peripheral neuropathy in people without diabetes, said Dr. Hicks, director of research at the university’s diabetic foot and wound service.
 

Heightened risk

To examine associations between peripheral neuropathy and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in U.S. adults, Dr. Hicks and colleagues analyzed data from 7,116 adults aged 40 years or older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2004.

The study included participants who underwent monofilament testing for peripheral neuropathy. During testing, technicians used a standard 5.07 Semmes-Weinstein nylon monofilament to apply slight pressure to the bottom of each foot at three sites. If participants could not correctly identify where pressure was applied, the test was repeated. After participants gave two incorrect or undeterminable responses for a site, the site was defined as insensate. The researchers defined peripheral neuropathy as at least one insensate site on either foot.

The researchers determined deaths and causes of death using death certificate records from the National Death Index through 2015.

In all, 13.5% of the participants had peripheral neuropathy, including 27% of adults with diabetes and 11.6% of adults without diabetes. Those with peripheral neuropathy were older, were more likely to be male, and had lower levels of education, compared with participants without peripheral neuropathy. They also had higher body mass index, were more often former or current smokers, and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and cardiovascular disease.

During a median follow-up of 13 years, 2,128 participants died, including 488 who died of cardiovascular causes.

The incidence rate of all-cause mortality per 1,000 person-years was 57.6 in adults with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy, 34.3 in adults with peripheral neuropathy but no diabetes, 27.1 in adults with diabetes but no peripheral neuropathy, and 13.0 in adults without diabetes or peripheral neuropathy.

Among participants with diabetes, the leading cause of death was cardiovascular disease (31% of deaths), whereas among participants without diabetes, the leading cause of death was malignant neoplasms (27% of deaths).

After adjustment for age, sex, race, or ethnicity, and risk factors such as cardiovascular disease, peripheral neuropathy was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.66) in participants with diabetes. In participants without diabetes, peripheral neuropathy was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.31), but its association with cardiovascular mortality was not statistically significant.

The association between peripheral neuropathy and all-cause mortality persisted in a sensitivity analysis that focused on adults with normoglycemia.
 

Related conditions

The study confirms findings from prior studies that examined the prevalence of loss of peripheral sensation in populations of older adults with and without diabetes, said Elsa S. Strotmeyer, PhD, MPH, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh. “The clinical significance of the loss of peripheral sensation in older adults without diabetes is not fully appreciated,” she said.

A limitation of the study is that peripheral neuropathy was not a clinical diagnosis. “Monofilament testing at the foot is a quick clinical screen for decreased lower-extremity sensation that likely is a result of sensory peripheral nerve decline,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Another limitation is that death certificates are less accurate than medical records for determining cause of death.

“Past studies have indicated that peripheral nerve decline is related to common conditions in aging such as the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease, cancer treatment, and physical function loss,” Dr. Strotmeyer said. “Therefore it is not surprising that is related to mortality as these conditions in aging are associated with increased mortality. Loss of peripheral sensation at the foot may also be related to fall injuries, and mortality from fall injuries has increased dramatically in older adults over the past several decades.”

Prior research has suggested that monofilament testing may play a role in screening for fall risk in older adults without diabetes, Dr. Strotmeyer added.

“For older adults both with and without diabetes, past studies have recommended monofilament testing be incorporated in geriatric screening for fall risk. Therefore, this article expands implications of clinical importance to understanding the pathology and consequences of loss of sensation at the foot in older patients,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Hicks, Dr. Selvin, and a coauthor, Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, disclosed NIH grants. In addition, Dr. Selvin disclosed personal fees from Novo Nordisk and grants from the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work, and Dr. Matsushita disclosed grants and personal fees from Fukuda Denshi outside the submitted work. Dr. Strotmeyer receives funding from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and is chair of the health sciences section of the Gerontological Society of America.

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

Peripheral neuropathy is common in U.S. adults and is associated with an increased risk of death, even in the absence of diabetes, researchers reported  in Annals of Internal Medicine.

©mheim3011/thinkstockphotos.com

The findings do not necessarily mean that doctors should implement broader screening for peripheral neuropathy at this time, however, the investigators said.

“Doctors don’t typically screen for peripheral neuropathy in persons without diabetes,” senior author Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“Our study shows that peripheral neuropathy – as assessed by decreased sensation in the feet – is common, even in people without diabetes,” Dr. Selvin explained. “It is not yet clear whether we should be screening people without diabetes since we don’t have clear treatments, but our study does suggest that this condition is an underrecognized condition that is associated with poor outcomes.”

Patients with diabetes typically undergo annual foot examinations that include screening for peripheral neuropathy, but that’s not the case for most adults in the absence of diabetes.

“I don’t know if we can make the jump that we should be screening people without diabetes,” said first author Caitlin W. Hicks, MD, assistant professor of surgery, division of vascular surgery and endovascular therapy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Right now, we do not exactly know what it means in the people without diabetes, and we definitely do not know how to treat it. So, screening for it will tell us that this person has this and is at higher risk of mortality than someone who doesn’t, but we do not know what to do with that information yet.”

Nevertheless, the study raises the question of whether physicians should pay more attention to peripheral neuropathy in people without diabetes, said Dr. Hicks, director of research at the university’s diabetic foot and wound service.
 

Heightened risk

To examine associations between peripheral neuropathy and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in U.S. adults, Dr. Hicks and colleagues analyzed data from 7,116 adults aged 40 years or older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2004.

The study included participants who underwent monofilament testing for peripheral neuropathy. During testing, technicians used a standard 5.07 Semmes-Weinstein nylon monofilament to apply slight pressure to the bottom of each foot at three sites. If participants could not correctly identify where pressure was applied, the test was repeated. After participants gave two incorrect or undeterminable responses for a site, the site was defined as insensate. The researchers defined peripheral neuropathy as at least one insensate site on either foot.

The researchers determined deaths and causes of death using death certificate records from the National Death Index through 2015.

In all, 13.5% of the participants had peripheral neuropathy, including 27% of adults with diabetes and 11.6% of adults without diabetes. Those with peripheral neuropathy were older, were more likely to be male, and had lower levels of education, compared with participants without peripheral neuropathy. They also had higher body mass index, were more often former or current smokers, and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and cardiovascular disease.

During a median follow-up of 13 years, 2,128 participants died, including 488 who died of cardiovascular causes.

The incidence rate of all-cause mortality per 1,000 person-years was 57.6 in adults with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy, 34.3 in adults with peripheral neuropathy but no diabetes, 27.1 in adults with diabetes but no peripheral neuropathy, and 13.0 in adults without diabetes or peripheral neuropathy.

Among participants with diabetes, the leading cause of death was cardiovascular disease (31% of deaths), whereas among participants without diabetes, the leading cause of death was malignant neoplasms (27% of deaths).

After adjustment for age, sex, race, or ethnicity, and risk factors such as cardiovascular disease, peripheral neuropathy was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.66) in participants with diabetes. In participants without diabetes, peripheral neuropathy was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.31), but its association with cardiovascular mortality was not statistically significant.

The association between peripheral neuropathy and all-cause mortality persisted in a sensitivity analysis that focused on adults with normoglycemia.
 

Related conditions

The study confirms findings from prior studies that examined the prevalence of loss of peripheral sensation in populations of older adults with and without diabetes, said Elsa S. Strotmeyer, PhD, MPH, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh. “The clinical significance of the loss of peripheral sensation in older adults without diabetes is not fully appreciated,” she said.

A limitation of the study is that peripheral neuropathy was not a clinical diagnosis. “Monofilament testing at the foot is a quick clinical screen for decreased lower-extremity sensation that likely is a result of sensory peripheral nerve decline,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Another limitation is that death certificates are less accurate than medical records for determining cause of death.

“Past studies have indicated that peripheral nerve decline is related to common conditions in aging such as the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease, cancer treatment, and physical function loss,” Dr. Strotmeyer said. “Therefore it is not surprising that is related to mortality as these conditions in aging are associated with increased mortality. Loss of peripheral sensation at the foot may also be related to fall injuries, and mortality from fall injuries has increased dramatically in older adults over the past several decades.”

Prior research has suggested that monofilament testing may play a role in screening for fall risk in older adults without diabetes, Dr. Strotmeyer added.

“For older adults both with and without diabetes, past studies have recommended monofilament testing be incorporated in geriatric screening for fall risk. Therefore, this article expands implications of clinical importance to understanding the pathology and consequences of loss of sensation at the foot in older patients,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Hicks, Dr. Selvin, and a coauthor, Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, disclosed NIH grants. In addition, Dr. Selvin disclosed personal fees from Novo Nordisk and grants from the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work, and Dr. Matsushita disclosed grants and personal fees from Fukuda Denshi outside the submitted work. Dr. Strotmeyer receives funding from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and is chair of the health sciences section of the Gerontological Society of America.

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

Peripheral neuropathy is common in U.S. adults and is associated with an increased risk of death, even in the absence of diabetes, researchers reported  in Annals of Internal Medicine.

©mheim3011/thinkstockphotos.com

The findings do not necessarily mean that doctors should implement broader screening for peripheral neuropathy at this time, however, the investigators said.

“Doctors don’t typically screen for peripheral neuropathy in persons without diabetes,” senior author Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“Our study shows that peripheral neuropathy – as assessed by decreased sensation in the feet – is common, even in people without diabetes,” Dr. Selvin explained. “It is not yet clear whether we should be screening people without diabetes since we don’t have clear treatments, but our study does suggest that this condition is an underrecognized condition that is associated with poor outcomes.”

Patients with diabetes typically undergo annual foot examinations that include screening for peripheral neuropathy, but that’s not the case for most adults in the absence of diabetes.

“I don’t know if we can make the jump that we should be screening people without diabetes,” said first author Caitlin W. Hicks, MD, assistant professor of surgery, division of vascular surgery and endovascular therapy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Right now, we do not exactly know what it means in the people without diabetes, and we definitely do not know how to treat it. So, screening for it will tell us that this person has this and is at higher risk of mortality than someone who doesn’t, but we do not know what to do with that information yet.”

Nevertheless, the study raises the question of whether physicians should pay more attention to peripheral neuropathy in people without diabetes, said Dr. Hicks, director of research at the university’s diabetic foot and wound service.
 

Heightened risk

To examine associations between peripheral neuropathy and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in U.S. adults, Dr. Hicks and colleagues analyzed data from 7,116 adults aged 40 years or older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2004.

The study included participants who underwent monofilament testing for peripheral neuropathy. During testing, technicians used a standard 5.07 Semmes-Weinstein nylon monofilament to apply slight pressure to the bottom of each foot at three sites. If participants could not correctly identify where pressure was applied, the test was repeated. After participants gave two incorrect or undeterminable responses for a site, the site was defined as insensate. The researchers defined peripheral neuropathy as at least one insensate site on either foot.

The researchers determined deaths and causes of death using death certificate records from the National Death Index through 2015.

In all, 13.5% of the participants had peripheral neuropathy, including 27% of adults with diabetes and 11.6% of adults without diabetes. Those with peripheral neuropathy were older, were more likely to be male, and had lower levels of education, compared with participants without peripheral neuropathy. They also had higher body mass index, were more often former or current smokers, and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and cardiovascular disease.

During a median follow-up of 13 years, 2,128 participants died, including 488 who died of cardiovascular causes.

The incidence rate of all-cause mortality per 1,000 person-years was 57.6 in adults with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy, 34.3 in adults with peripheral neuropathy but no diabetes, 27.1 in adults with diabetes but no peripheral neuropathy, and 13.0 in adults without diabetes or peripheral neuropathy.

Among participants with diabetes, the leading cause of death was cardiovascular disease (31% of deaths), whereas among participants without diabetes, the leading cause of death was malignant neoplasms (27% of deaths).

After adjustment for age, sex, race, or ethnicity, and risk factors such as cardiovascular disease, peripheral neuropathy was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.66) in participants with diabetes. In participants without diabetes, peripheral neuropathy was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.31), but its association with cardiovascular mortality was not statistically significant.

The association between peripheral neuropathy and all-cause mortality persisted in a sensitivity analysis that focused on adults with normoglycemia.
 

Related conditions

The study confirms findings from prior studies that examined the prevalence of loss of peripheral sensation in populations of older adults with and without diabetes, said Elsa S. Strotmeyer, PhD, MPH, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh. “The clinical significance of the loss of peripheral sensation in older adults without diabetes is not fully appreciated,” she said.

A limitation of the study is that peripheral neuropathy was not a clinical diagnosis. “Monofilament testing at the foot is a quick clinical screen for decreased lower-extremity sensation that likely is a result of sensory peripheral nerve decline,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Another limitation is that death certificates are less accurate than medical records for determining cause of death.

“Past studies have indicated that peripheral nerve decline is related to common conditions in aging such as the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease, cancer treatment, and physical function loss,” Dr. Strotmeyer said. “Therefore it is not surprising that is related to mortality as these conditions in aging are associated with increased mortality. Loss of peripheral sensation at the foot may also be related to fall injuries, and mortality from fall injuries has increased dramatically in older adults over the past several decades.”

Prior research has suggested that monofilament testing may play a role in screening for fall risk in older adults without diabetes, Dr. Strotmeyer added.

“For older adults both with and without diabetes, past studies have recommended monofilament testing be incorporated in geriatric screening for fall risk. Therefore, this article expands implications of clinical importance to understanding the pathology and consequences of loss of sensation at the foot in older patients,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Hicks, Dr. Selvin, and a coauthor, Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, disclosed NIH grants. In addition, Dr. Selvin disclosed personal fees from Novo Nordisk and grants from the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work, and Dr. Matsushita disclosed grants and personal fees from Fukuda Denshi outside the submitted work. Dr. Strotmeyer receives funding from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and is chair of the health sciences section of the Gerontological Society of America.

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

Cancer patients who receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor have more than a doubled rate of venous thromboembolism during the subsequent 2 years, compared with their rate during the 2 years before treatment, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 2,800 patients treated at a single U.S. center.

The study focused on cancer patients treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. It showed that during the 2 years prior to treatment with any type of ICI, the incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) was 4.85/100 patient-years that then jumped to 11.75/100 patient-years during the 2 years following treatment. This translated into an incidence rate ratio of 2.43 during posttreatment follow-up, compared with pretreatment, Jingyi Gong, MD, said at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The increased VTE rate resulted from rises in both the rate of deep vein thrombosis, which had an IRR of 3.23 during the posttreatment period, and for pulmonary embolism, which showed an IRR of 2.24, said Dr. Gong, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She hypothesized that this effect may result from a procoagulant effect of the immune activation and inflammation triggered by ICIs.


Hypothesis-generating results

Cardiologists cautioned that these findings should only be considered hypothesis generating, but raise an important alert for clinicians to have heightened awareness of the potential for VTE following ICI treatment.

“A clear message is to be aware that there is this signal, and be vigilant for patients who might present with VTE following ICI treatment,” commented Richard J. Kovacs, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Indiana University, Indianapolis. The data that Dr. Gong reported are “moderately convincing,” he added in an interview.

“Awareness that patients who receive ICI may be at increased VTE risk is very important,” agreed Umberto Campia, MD, a cardiologist, vascular specialist, and member of the cardio-oncology group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved in the new study.

The potential impact of ICI treatment on VTE risk is slowly emerging, added Dr. Campia. Until recently, the literature primarily was case reports, but recently another retrospective, single-center study came out that reported a 13% incidence of VTE in cancer patients following ICI treatment. On the other hand, a recently published meta-analysis of more than 20,000 patients from 68 ICI studies failed to find a suggestion of increased VTE incidence following ICI interventions.

Attempting to assess the impact of treatment on VTE risk in cancer patients is challenging because cancer itself boosts the risk. Recommendations on the use of VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients most recently came out in 2014 from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which said that VTE prophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients “may be considered for highly select high-risk patients.” The impact of cancer therapy on VTE risk and the need for prophylaxis is usually assessed by applying the Khorana score, Dr. Campia said in an interview.
 

VTE spikes acutely after ICI treatment

Dr. Gong analyzed VTE incidence rates by time during the total 4-year period studied, and found that the rate gradually and steadily rose with time throughout the 2 years preceding treatment, spiked immediately following ICI treatment, and then gradually and steadily fell back to roughly the rate seen just before treatment, reaching that level about a year after treatment. She ran a sensitivity analysis that excluded patients who died during the first year following their ICI treatment, and in this calculation an acute spike in VTE following ICI treatment still occurred but with reduced magnitude.

She also reported the results of several subgroup analyses. The IRRs remained consistent among women and men, among patients who were aged over or under 65 years, and regardless of cancer type or treatment with corticosteroids. But the subgroup analyses identified two parameters that seemed to clearly split VTE rates.

Among patients on treatment with an anticoagulant agent at the time of their ICI treatment, roughly 10% of the patients, the IRR was 0.56, compared with a ratio of 3.86 among the other patients, suggesting possible protection. A second factor that seemed linked with VTE incidence was the number of ICI treatment cycles a patient received. Those who received more than five cycles had a risk ratio of 3.95, while those who received five or fewer cycles had a RR of 1.66.

Her analysis included 2,842 cancer patients who received treatment with an ICI at Massachusetts General Hospital. Patients averaged 64 years of age, slightly more than half were men, and 13% had a prior history of VTE. Patients received an average of 5 ICI treatment cycles, but a quarter of the patients received more than 10 cycles.

During the 2-year follow-up, 244 patients (9%) developed VTE. The patients who developed VTE were significantly younger than those who did not, with an average age of 63 years, compared with 65. And the patients who eventually developed VTE had a significantly higher prevalence of prior VTE at 18%, compared with 12% among the patients who stayed VTE free.

The cancer types patients had were non–small cell lung, 29%; melanoma, 28%; head and neck, 12%; renal genitourinary, 6%; and other, 25%. ICIs have been available for routine U.S. practice since 2011. The class includes agents such as pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and durvalumab (Imfinzi).

Researchers would need to perform a prospective, randomized study to determine whether anticoagulant prophylaxis is clearly beneficial for patients receiving ICI treatment, Dr. Gong said. But both Dr. Kovacs and Dr. Campia said that more data on this topic are first needed.

“We need to confirm that treatment with ICI is associated with VTEs. Retrospective data are not definitive,” said Dr. Campia. “We would need to prospectively assess the impact of ICI,” which will not be easy, as it’s quickly become a cornerstone for treating many cancers. “We need to become more familiar with the adverse effects of these drugs. We are still learning about their toxicities.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gong, Dr. Kovacs, and Dr. Campia had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Cancer patients who receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor have more than a doubled rate of venous thromboembolism during the subsequent 2 years, compared with their rate during the 2 years before treatment, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 2,800 patients treated at a single U.S. center.

The study focused on cancer patients treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. It showed that during the 2 years prior to treatment with any type of ICI, the incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) was 4.85/100 patient-years that then jumped to 11.75/100 patient-years during the 2 years following treatment. This translated into an incidence rate ratio of 2.43 during posttreatment follow-up, compared with pretreatment, Jingyi Gong, MD, said at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The increased VTE rate resulted from rises in both the rate of deep vein thrombosis, which had an IRR of 3.23 during the posttreatment period, and for pulmonary embolism, which showed an IRR of 2.24, said Dr. Gong, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She hypothesized that this effect may result from a procoagulant effect of the immune activation and inflammation triggered by ICIs.


Hypothesis-generating results

Cardiologists cautioned that these findings should only be considered hypothesis generating, but raise an important alert for clinicians to have heightened awareness of the potential for VTE following ICI treatment.

“A clear message is to be aware that there is this signal, and be vigilant for patients who might present with VTE following ICI treatment,” commented Richard J. Kovacs, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Indiana University, Indianapolis. The data that Dr. Gong reported are “moderately convincing,” he added in an interview.

“Awareness that patients who receive ICI may be at increased VTE risk is very important,” agreed Umberto Campia, MD, a cardiologist, vascular specialist, and member of the cardio-oncology group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved in the new study.

The potential impact of ICI treatment on VTE risk is slowly emerging, added Dr. Campia. Until recently, the literature primarily was case reports, but recently another retrospective, single-center study came out that reported a 13% incidence of VTE in cancer patients following ICI treatment. On the other hand, a recently published meta-analysis of more than 20,000 patients from 68 ICI studies failed to find a suggestion of increased VTE incidence following ICI interventions.

Attempting to assess the impact of treatment on VTE risk in cancer patients is challenging because cancer itself boosts the risk. Recommendations on the use of VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients most recently came out in 2014 from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which said that VTE prophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients “may be considered for highly select high-risk patients.” The impact of cancer therapy on VTE risk and the need for prophylaxis is usually assessed by applying the Khorana score, Dr. Campia said in an interview.
 

VTE spikes acutely after ICI treatment

Dr. Gong analyzed VTE incidence rates by time during the total 4-year period studied, and found that the rate gradually and steadily rose with time throughout the 2 years preceding treatment, spiked immediately following ICI treatment, and then gradually and steadily fell back to roughly the rate seen just before treatment, reaching that level about a year after treatment. She ran a sensitivity analysis that excluded patients who died during the first year following their ICI treatment, and in this calculation an acute spike in VTE following ICI treatment still occurred but with reduced magnitude.

She also reported the results of several subgroup analyses. The IRRs remained consistent among women and men, among patients who were aged over or under 65 years, and regardless of cancer type or treatment with corticosteroids. But the subgroup analyses identified two parameters that seemed to clearly split VTE rates.

Among patients on treatment with an anticoagulant agent at the time of their ICI treatment, roughly 10% of the patients, the IRR was 0.56, compared with a ratio of 3.86 among the other patients, suggesting possible protection. A second factor that seemed linked with VTE incidence was the number of ICI treatment cycles a patient received. Those who received more than five cycles had a risk ratio of 3.95, while those who received five or fewer cycles had a RR of 1.66.

Her analysis included 2,842 cancer patients who received treatment with an ICI at Massachusetts General Hospital. Patients averaged 64 years of age, slightly more than half were men, and 13% had a prior history of VTE. Patients received an average of 5 ICI treatment cycles, but a quarter of the patients received more than 10 cycles.

During the 2-year follow-up, 244 patients (9%) developed VTE. The patients who developed VTE were significantly younger than those who did not, with an average age of 63 years, compared with 65. And the patients who eventually developed VTE had a significantly higher prevalence of prior VTE at 18%, compared with 12% among the patients who stayed VTE free.

The cancer types patients had were non–small cell lung, 29%; melanoma, 28%; head and neck, 12%; renal genitourinary, 6%; and other, 25%. ICIs have been available for routine U.S. practice since 2011. The class includes agents such as pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and durvalumab (Imfinzi).

Researchers would need to perform a prospective, randomized study to determine whether anticoagulant prophylaxis is clearly beneficial for patients receiving ICI treatment, Dr. Gong said. But both Dr. Kovacs and Dr. Campia said that more data on this topic are first needed.

“We need to confirm that treatment with ICI is associated with VTEs. Retrospective data are not definitive,” said Dr. Campia. “We would need to prospectively assess the impact of ICI,” which will not be easy, as it’s quickly become a cornerstone for treating many cancers. “We need to become more familiar with the adverse effects of these drugs. We are still learning about their toxicities.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gong, Dr. Kovacs, and Dr. Campia had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Cancer patients who receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor have more than a doubled rate of venous thromboembolism during the subsequent 2 years, compared with their rate during the 2 years before treatment, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 2,800 patients treated at a single U.S. center.

The study focused on cancer patients treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. It showed that during the 2 years prior to treatment with any type of ICI, the incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) was 4.85/100 patient-years that then jumped to 11.75/100 patient-years during the 2 years following treatment. This translated into an incidence rate ratio of 2.43 during posttreatment follow-up, compared with pretreatment, Jingyi Gong, MD, said at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The increased VTE rate resulted from rises in both the rate of deep vein thrombosis, which had an IRR of 3.23 during the posttreatment period, and for pulmonary embolism, which showed an IRR of 2.24, said Dr. Gong, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She hypothesized that this effect may result from a procoagulant effect of the immune activation and inflammation triggered by ICIs.


Hypothesis-generating results

Cardiologists cautioned that these findings should only be considered hypothesis generating, but raise an important alert for clinicians to have heightened awareness of the potential for VTE following ICI treatment.

“A clear message is to be aware that there is this signal, and be vigilant for patients who might present with VTE following ICI treatment,” commented Richard J. Kovacs, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Indiana University, Indianapolis. The data that Dr. Gong reported are “moderately convincing,” he added in an interview.

“Awareness that patients who receive ICI may be at increased VTE risk is very important,” agreed Umberto Campia, MD, a cardiologist, vascular specialist, and member of the cardio-oncology group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved in the new study.

The potential impact of ICI treatment on VTE risk is slowly emerging, added Dr. Campia. Until recently, the literature primarily was case reports, but recently another retrospective, single-center study came out that reported a 13% incidence of VTE in cancer patients following ICI treatment. On the other hand, a recently published meta-analysis of more than 20,000 patients from 68 ICI studies failed to find a suggestion of increased VTE incidence following ICI interventions.

Attempting to assess the impact of treatment on VTE risk in cancer patients is challenging because cancer itself boosts the risk. Recommendations on the use of VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients most recently came out in 2014 from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which said that VTE prophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients “may be considered for highly select high-risk patients.” The impact of cancer therapy on VTE risk and the need for prophylaxis is usually assessed by applying the Khorana score, Dr. Campia said in an interview.
 

VTE spikes acutely after ICI treatment

Dr. Gong analyzed VTE incidence rates by time during the total 4-year period studied, and found that the rate gradually and steadily rose with time throughout the 2 years preceding treatment, spiked immediately following ICI treatment, and then gradually and steadily fell back to roughly the rate seen just before treatment, reaching that level about a year after treatment. She ran a sensitivity analysis that excluded patients who died during the first year following their ICI treatment, and in this calculation an acute spike in VTE following ICI treatment still occurred but with reduced magnitude.

She also reported the results of several subgroup analyses. The IRRs remained consistent among women and men, among patients who were aged over or under 65 years, and regardless of cancer type or treatment with corticosteroids. But the subgroup analyses identified two parameters that seemed to clearly split VTE rates.

Among patients on treatment with an anticoagulant agent at the time of their ICI treatment, roughly 10% of the patients, the IRR was 0.56, compared with a ratio of 3.86 among the other patients, suggesting possible protection. A second factor that seemed linked with VTE incidence was the number of ICI treatment cycles a patient received. Those who received more than five cycles had a risk ratio of 3.95, while those who received five or fewer cycles had a RR of 1.66.

Her analysis included 2,842 cancer patients who received treatment with an ICI at Massachusetts General Hospital. Patients averaged 64 years of age, slightly more than half were men, and 13% had a prior history of VTE. Patients received an average of 5 ICI treatment cycles, but a quarter of the patients received more than 10 cycles.

During the 2-year follow-up, 244 patients (9%) developed VTE. The patients who developed VTE were significantly younger than those who did not, with an average age of 63 years, compared with 65. And the patients who eventually developed VTE had a significantly higher prevalence of prior VTE at 18%, compared with 12% among the patients who stayed VTE free.

The cancer types patients had were non–small cell lung, 29%; melanoma, 28%; head and neck, 12%; renal genitourinary, 6%; and other, 25%. ICIs have been available for routine U.S. practice since 2011. The class includes agents such as pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and durvalumab (Imfinzi).

Researchers would need to perform a prospective, randomized study to determine whether anticoagulant prophylaxis is clearly beneficial for patients receiving ICI treatment, Dr. Gong said. But both Dr. Kovacs and Dr. Campia said that more data on this topic are first needed.

“We need to confirm that treatment with ICI is associated with VTEs. Retrospective data are not definitive,” said Dr. Campia. “We would need to prospectively assess the impact of ICI,” which will not be easy, as it’s quickly become a cornerstone for treating many cancers. “We need to become more familiar with the adverse effects of these drugs. We are still learning about their toxicities.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gong, Dr. Kovacs, and Dr. Campia had no disclosures.

[email protected]

The absolute benefit of adding low-dose rivaroxaban to low-dose aspirin following revascularization for symptomatic lower-extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) is significantly greater in patients with comorbid coronary artery disease (CAD), according to a new secondary analysis of the VOYAGER PAD trial.

“These findings suggest heterogeneity of prognostic risk for ischemic events in lower-extremity PAD patients, and may support shared decision-making with these patients,” William R. Hiatt, MD, observed in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

VOYAGER PAD was a 3-year, 34-country clinical trial in which 6,564 patients with symptomatic PAD who had recently undergone lower-limb revascularization were randomized in double-blind fashion to rivaroxaban (Xarelto) at 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background standard therapy with low-dose aspirin.

Among the 2,067 participants with baseline comorbid CAD, the primary outcome – a composite comprised of cardiovascular death, acute MI, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, and major amputation – occurred in 18.9% of the rivaroxaban group at 3 years and 24.3% on placebo, for a highly significant 22% relative risk reduction.

In contrast, in the 4,497 patients with PAD only, the primary outcome occurred in 16.1% of those on rivaroxaban and 17.9% of controls, an 11% relative risk reduction which failed to reach statistical significance. The absolute risk reduction achieved with rivaroxaban was 5.4% in patients with PAD plus CAD versus 1.8% in those with PAD alone. Thus, the significant clinical benefit with rivaroxaban plus aspirin previously reported in the overall study population, with a number needed to treat for 3 years of 39 in order to prevent one primary outcome event, was largely driven by the superior outcomes in the dual-diagnosis subgroup, reported Dr. Hiatt, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“A strategy of rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus low-dose aspirin versus low-dose aspirin alone reduces ischemic events of the limb, brain, and heart, but also increases bleeding, with an overall net benefit,” the cardiologist said. “In particular, the benefits of this strategy for MI and ischemic stroke are robust, especially in patients with PAD and CAD.”

Indeed, the MI rate at 3 years in the dual diagnosis subgroup was 7.3% with rivaroxaban and 8.8% with placebo, for a 23% relative risk reduction, compared with rates of 3.3% and 3.7%, respectively, in patients with PAD only. Similarly, ischemic stroke occurred in 2.9% of patients with PAD and CAD in the rivaroxaban group, compared with 3.9% with placebo, whereas the rate in the PAD only group was identical at 2.6% regardless of whether patients were on rivaroxaban or placebo.

In patients without CAD, the clinical benefit of rivaroxaban was driven by reductions in severe limb events. Their rate of acute limb ischemia was 5.2% with rivaroxaban, compared with 8.3% with placebo, for a 37% relative risk reduction. In contrast, the reduction in acute limb ischemia with rivaroxaban in patients with PAD and CAD wasn’t significantly different from placebo.

Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding occurred in 2.4% of patients with PAD and CAD on rivaroxaban, compared with 1.1% on placebo, and in 1.7% and 1.5% of patients with PAD alone. Of note, rates of ischemic stroke or fatal hemorrhage were low and similar at less than 1% in all four groups, Dr. Hiatt noted.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Hiatt reported receiving research grant support from those two companies as well as Amgen.

[email protected]

The absolute benefit of adding low-dose rivaroxaban to low-dose aspirin following revascularization for symptomatic lower-extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) is significantly greater in patients with comorbid coronary artery disease (CAD), according to a new secondary analysis of the VOYAGER PAD trial.

“These findings suggest heterogeneity of prognostic risk for ischemic events in lower-extremity PAD patients, and may support shared decision-making with these patients,” William R. Hiatt, MD, observed in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

VOYAGER PAD was a 3-year, 34-country clinical trial in which 6,564 patients with symptomatic PAD who had recently undergone lower-limb revascularization were randomized in double-blind fashion to rivaroxaban (Xarelto) at 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background standard therapy with low-dose aspirin.

Among the 2,067 participants with baseline comorbid CAD, the primary outcome – a composite comprised of cardiovascular death, acute MI, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, and major amputation – occurred in 18.9% of the rivaroxaban group at 3 years and 24.3% on placebo, for a highly significant 22% relative risk reduction.

In contrast, in the 4,497 patients with PAD only, the primary outcome occurred in 16.1% of those on rivaroxaban and 17.9% of controls, an 11% relative risk reduction which failed to reach statistical significance. The absolute risk reduction achieved with rivaroxaban was 5.4% in patients with PAD plus CAD versus 1.8% in those with PAD alone. Thus, the significant clinical benefit with rivaroxaban plus aspirin previously reported in the overall study population, with a number needed to treat for 3 years of 39 in order to prevent one primary outcome event, was largely driven by the superior outcomes in the dual-diagnosis subgroup, reported Dr. Hiatt, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“A strategy of rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus low-dose aspirin versus low-dose aspirin alone reduces ischemic events of the limb, brain, and heart, but also increases bleeding, with an overall net benefit,” the cardiologist said. “In particular, the benefits of this strategy for MI and ischemic stroke are robust, especially in patients with PAD and CAD.”

Indeed, the MI rate at 3 years in the dual diagnosis subgroup was 7.3% with rivaroxaban and 8.8% with placebo, for a 23% relative risk reduction, compared with rates of 3.3% and 3.7%, respectively, in patients with PAD only. Similarly, ischemic stroke occurred in 2.9% of patients with PAD and CAD in the rivaroxaban group, compared with 3.9% with placebo, whereas the rate in the PAD only group was identical at 2.6% regardless of whether patients were on rivaroxaban or placebo.

In patients without CAD, the clinical benefit of rivaroxaban was driven by reductions in severe limb events. Their rate of acute limb ischemia was 5.2% with rivaroxaban, compared with 8.3% with placebo, for a 37% relative risk reduction. In contrast, the reduction in acute limb ischemia with rivaroxaban in patients with PAD and CAD wasn’t significantly different from placebo.

Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding occurred in 2.4% of patients with PAD and CAD on rivaroxaban, compared with 1.1% on placebo, and in 1.7% and 1.5% of patients with PAD alone. Of note, rates of ischemic stroke or fatal hemorrhage were low and similar at less than 1% in all four groups, Dr. Hiatt noted.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Hiatt reported receiving research grant support from those two companies as well as Amgen.

[email protected]

The absolute benefit of adding low-dose rivaroxaban to low-dose aspirin following revascularization for symptomatic lower-extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) is significantly greater in patients with comorbid coronary artery disease (CAD), according to a new secondary analysis of the VOYAGER PAD trial.

“These findings suggest heterogeneity of prognostic risk for ischemic events in lower-extremity PAD patients, and may support shared decision-making with these patients,” William R. Hiatt, MD, observed in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

VOYAGER PAD was a 3-year, 34-country clinical trial in which 6,564 patients with symptomatic PAD who had recently undergone lower-limb revascularization were randomized in double-blind fashion to rivaroxaban (Xarelto) at 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background standard therapy with low-dose aspirin.

Among the 2,067 participants with baseline comorbid CAD, the primary outcome – a composite comprised of cardiovascular death, acute MI, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, and major amputation – occurred in 18.9% of the rivaroxaban group at 3 years and 24.3% on placebo, for a highly significant 22% relative risk reduction.

In contrast, in the 4,497 patients with PAD only, the primary outcome occurred in 16.1% of those on rivaroxaban and 17.9% of controls, an 11% relative risk reduction which failed to reach statistical significance. The absolute risk reduction achieved with rivaroxaban was 5.4% in patients with PAD plus CAD versus 1.8% in those with PAD alone. Thus, the significant clinical benefit with rivaroxaban plus aspirin previously reported in the overall study population, with a number needed to treat for 3 years of 39 in order to prevent one primary outcome event, was largely driven by the superior outcomes in the dual-diagnosis subgroup, reported Dr. Hiatt, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“A strategy of rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus low-dose aspirin versus low-dose aspirin alone reduces ischemic events of the limb, brain, and heart, but also increases bleeding, with an overall net benefit,” the cardiologist said. “In particular, the benefits of this strategy for MI and ischemic stroke are robust, especially in patients with PAD and CAD.”

Indeed, the MI rate at 3 years in the dual diagnosis subgroup was 7.3% with rivaroxaban and 8.8% with placebo, for a 23% relative risk reduction, compared with rates of 3.3% and 3.7%, respectively, in patients with PAD only. Similarly, ischemic stroke occurred in 2.9% of patients with PAD and CAD in the rivaroxaban group, compared with 3.9% with placebo, whereas the rate in the PAD only group was identical at 2.6% regardless of whether patients were on rivaroxaban or placebo.

In patients without CAD, the clinical benefit of rivaroxaban was driven by reductions in severe limb events. Their rate of acute limb ischemia was 5.2% with rivaroxaban, compared with 8.3% with placebo, for a 37% relative risk reduction. In contrast, the reduction in acute limb ischemia with rivaroxaban in patients with PAD and CAD wasn’t significantly different from placebo.

Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding occurred in 2.4% of patients with PAD and CAD on rivaroxaban, compared with 1.1% on placebo, and in 1.7% and 1.5% of patients with PAD alone. Of note, rates of ischemic stroke or fatal hemorrhage were low and similar at less than 1% in all four groups, Dr. Hiatt noted.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Hiatt reported receiving research grant support from those two companies as well as Amgen.

[email protected]

A polygenic risk score based on analysis of 29 discrete genetic variants linked with abdominal aortic aneurysms appeared better than the current criteria that clinicians use to identify people to screen for this disorder, potentially paving the way for more efficient use of screening resources.

Ryuji Suzuki

Future screening guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) “should consider including individuals with high polygenic risk for screening ultrasonography,” Derek Klarin, MD, said at the virtual Vascular Discovery Scientific Sessions 2020, organized by the American Heart Association.

The data he reported showed that when researchers applied the polygenic risk score (PRS) to men aged older than 50 years in three independent validation cohorts of people with primarily European ancestry, those with scores in the top 5 percentile within each cohort had a collective AAA prevalence rate of 8.6% (95% CI 7.3%-9.8%).

This 8.6% pick-up rate using the PRS to help identify screening candidates for this male demographic subgroup compared favorably with previously reported prevalence rates of AAA detected by ultrasonography (defined as aneurysms of at least 3.0 cm in diameter) in men aged 65 years or older with a history of ever smoking. Last year, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued an updated recommendation to perform a one-time ultrasound screening of 65- to 75-year-old men who ever smoked and cited five reported screening studies that found prevalence rates in these people of 3.3%-7.6% (JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322[22]:2211-8). An earlier review of the topic by the task force cited an average estimated prevalence of 6%-7% in men at least 65 years old and with a smoking history (Ann Intern Med. 2014 Aug 19;161[4]: 281-90).

“You can use [the PRS] with other risk factors to increase the yield of identifying those at high risk,” Dr. Klarin said during a discussion of his report. He noted the possibility of using it to identify people at-risk early on, at birth, “prior to other risk factors being present,” as well as using the PRS as an add-on to known risk factors when assessing adults. He stressed that validations he has run so far still leave the PRS a step away from routine use, although it is “quite close,” said Dr. Klarin, a vascular surgeon at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

For use in routine practice, the PRS needs “further validation,” including further assessment of its performance in other age groups, in a wider range of ethnic groups, and in women, said Chris Semsarian, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and head of the Molecular Cardiology Program at its Centenary Institute. However, Dr. Semsarian also said that he saw great promise for the potential of the PRS, and its development so far had been solid.

“The study was meticulously undertaken, with a large number of AAA cases and controls. Both the derivation and validation are robust. There is great potential to use such a genetic risk score in the clinical setting, along with other risk factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, and lipid levels. The PRS adds another piece in the puzzle of risk of AAA by adding in genetic or inherited risk. An additional 1%-2% in pick-up rate would still lead to many thousands more AAA detected and lives saved. The PRS doesn’t replace environmental factors that contribute to AAA risk but adds a genetic component” when estimating a person’s overall risk and the appropriateness of screening ultrasound, Dr. Semsarian said in an interview.

The derivation analysis that Dr. Klarin and associates ran used data from the Million Veteran Program that included 7,642 people with AAA and matched them with more than 172,000 controls from the same database. This generated three alternative PRSs that involved testing for 29, 301, or 3,699 different mutations or polymorphisms that discriminated cases from controls. They compared these three scoring formulas in 1,000 AAA cases and 7,700 matched controls from the Mayo Clinic’s patient database, which showed that the 29-item PRS performed best, boosting identification of cases with a statistically significant odds ratio of 1.26.

They then ran the 29-item PRS in four additional large data banks, three that included mostly people of European ancestry and one that included mostly people with an African heritage. In the three data banks with people of mostly European background, the 29-item PRS performed even better than it did using the Mayo Clinic data, but this PRS was less informative in people with African ancestry. The analyses also suggested that the PRS identified elevated AAA risk independently of information on a family history of AAA, Dr. Klarin said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Klarin has been a consultant to Regeneron.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Klarin D et al. Vascular Discovery 2020, abstract 170.

A polygenic risk score based on analysis of 29 discrete genetic variants linked with abdominal aortic aneurysms appeared better than the current criteria that clinicians use to identify people to screen for this disorder, potentially paving the way for more efficient use of screening resources.

Ryuji Suzuki

Future screening guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) “should consider including individuals with high polygenic risk for screening ultrasonography,” Derek Klarin, MD, said at the virtual Vascular Discovery Scientific Sessions 2020, organized by the American Heart Association.

The data he reported showed that when researchers applied the polygenic risk score (PRS) to men aged older than 50 years in three independent validation cohorts of people with primarily European ancestry, those with scores in the top 5 percentile within each cohort had a collective AAA prevalence rate of 8.6% (95% CI 7.3%-9.8%).

This 8.6% pick-up rate using the PRS to help identify screening candidates for this male demographic subgroup compared favorably with previously reported prevalence rates of AAA detected by ultrasonography (defined as aneurysms of at least 3.0 cm in diameter) in men aged 65 years or older with a history of ever smoking. Last year, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued an updated recommendation to perform a one-time ultrasound screening of 65- to 75-year-old men who ever smoked and cited five reported screening studies that found prevalence rates in these people of 3.3%-7.6% (JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322[22]:2211-8). An earlier review of the topic by the task force cited an average estimated prevalence of 6%-7% in men at least 65 years old and with a smoking history (Ann Intern Med. 2014 Aug 19;161[4]: 281-90).

“You can use [the PRS] with other risk factors to increase the yield of identifying those at high risk,” Dr. Klarin said during a discussion of his report. He noted the possibility of using it to identify people at-risk early on, at birth, “prior to other risk factors being present,” as well as using the PRS as an add-on to known risk factors when assessing adults. He stressed that validations he has run so far still leave the PRS a step away from routine use, although it is “quite close,” said Dr. Klarin, a vascular surgeon at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

For use in routine practice, the PRS needs “further validation,” including further assessment of its performance in other age groups, in a wider range of ethnic groups, and in women, said Chris Semsarian, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and head of the Molecular Cardiology Program at its Centenary Institute. However, Dr. Semsarian also said that he saw great promise for the potential of the PRS, and its development so far had been solid.

“The study was meticulously undertaken, with a large number of AAA cases and controls. Both the derivation and validation are robust. There is great potential to use such a genetic risk score in the clinical setting, along with other risk factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, and lipid levels. The PRS adds another piece in the puzzle of risk of AAA by adding in genetic or inherited risk. An additional 1%-2% in pick-up rate would still lead to many thousands more AAA detected and lives saved. The PRS doesn’t replace environmental factors that contribute to AAA risk but adds a genetic component” when estimating a person’s overall risk and the appropriateness of screening ultrasound, Dr. Semsarian said in an interview.

The derivation analysis that Dr. Klarin and associates ran used data from the Million Veteran Program that included 7,642 people with AAA and matched them with more than 172,000 controls from the same database. This generated three alternative PRSs that involved testing for 29, 301, or 3,699 different mutations or polymorphisms that discriminated cases from controls. They compared these three scoring formulas in 1,000 AAA cases and 7,700 matched controls from the Mayo Clinic’s patient database, which showed that the 29-item PRS performed best, boosting identification of cases with a statistically significant odds ratio of 1.26.

They then ran the 29-item PRS in four additional large data banks, three that included mostly people of European ancestry and one that included mostly people with an African heritage. In the three data banks with people of mostly European background, the 29-item PRS performed even better than it did using the Mayo Clinic data, but this PRS was less informative in people with African ancestry. The analyses also suggested that the PRS identified elevated AAA risk independently of information on a family history of AAA, Dr. Klarin said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Klarin has been a consultant to Regeneron.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Klarin D et al. Vascular Discovery 2020, abstract 170.

A polygenic risk score based on analysis of 29 discrete genetic variants linked with abdominal aortic aneurysms appeared better than the current criteria that clinicians use to identify people to screen for this disorder, potentially paving the way for more efficient use of screening resources.

Ryuji Suzuki

Future screening guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) “should consider including individuals with high polygenic risk for screening ultrasonography,” Derek Klarin, MD, said at the virtual Vascular Discovery Scientific Sessions 2020, organized by the American Heart Association.

The data he reported showed that when researchers applied the polygenic risk score (PRS) to men aged older than 50 years in three independent validation cohorts of people with primarily European ancestry, those with scores in the top 5 percentile within each cohort had a collective AAA prevalence rate of 8.6% (95% CI 7.3%-9.8%).

This 8.6% pick-up rate using the PRS to help identify screening candidates for this male demographic subgroup compared favorably with previously reported prevalence rates of AAA detected by ultrasonography (defined as aneurysms of at least 3.0 cm in diameter) in men aged 65 years or older with a history of ever smoking. Last year, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued an updated recommendation to perform a one-time ultrasound screening of 65- to 75-year-old men who ever smoked and cited five reported screening studies that found prevalence rates in these people of 3.3%-7.6% (JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322[22]:2211-8). An earlier review of the topic by the task force cited an average estimated prevalence of 6%-7% in men at least 65 years old and with a smoking history (Ann Intern Med. 2014 Aug 19;161[4]: 281-90).

“You can use [the PRS] with other risk factors to increase the yield of identifying those at high risk,” Dr. Klarin said during a discussion of his report. He noted the possibility of using it to identify people at-risk early on, at birth, “prior to other risk factors being present,” as well as using the PRS as an add-on to known risk factors when assessing adults. He stressed that validations he has run so far still leave the PRS a step away from routine use, although it is “quite close,” said Dr. Klarin, a vascular surgeon at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

For use in routine practice, the PRS needs “further validation,” including further assessment of its performance in other age groups, in a wider range of ethnic groups, and in women, said Chris Semsarian, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and head of the Molecular Cardiology Program at its Centenary Institute. However, Dr. Semsarian also said that he saw great promise for the potential of the PRS, and its development so far had been solid.

“The study was meticulously undertaken, with a large number of AAA cases and controls. Both the derivation and validation are robust. There is great potential to use such a genetic risk score in the clinical setting, along with other risk factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, and lipid levels. The PRS adds another piece in the puzzle of risk of AAA by adding in genetic or inherited risk. An additional 1%-2% in pick-up rate would still lead to many thousands more AAA detected and lives saved. The PRS doesn’t replace environmental factors that contribute to AAA risk but adds a genetic component” when estimating a person’s overall risk and the appropriateness of screening ultrasound, Dr. Semsarian said in an interview.

The derivation analysis that Dr. Klarin and associates ran used data from the Million Veteran Program that included 7,642 people with AAA and matched them with more than 172,000 controls from the same database. This generated three alternative PRSs that involved testing for 29, 301, or 3,699 different mutations or polymorphisms that discriminated cases from controls. They compared these three scoring formulas in 1,000 AAA cases and 7,700 matched controls from the Mayo Clinic’s patient database, which showed that the 29-item PRS performed best, boosting identification of cases with a statistically significant odds ratio of 1.26.

They then ran the 29-item PRS in four additional large data banks, three that included mostly people of European ancestry and one that included mostly people with an African heritage. In the three data banks with people of mostly European background, the 29-item PRS performed even better than it did using the Mayo Clinic data, but this PRS was less informative in people with African ancestry. The analyses also suggested that the PRS identified elevated AAA risk independently of information on a family history of AAA, Dr. Klarin said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Klarin has been a consultant to Regeneron.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Klarin D et al. Vascular Discovery 2020, abstract 170.

Post hoc analyses of recent large, clinical outcomes studies of PCSK9 inhibitors have revealed two tantalizing and unexpected potential benefits from these drugs: an ability to substantially reduce the incidence or severity of venous thromboembolism and aortic stenosis.

The evidence also suggests that these effects are linked to the ability of these drugs to reduce blood levels of Lp(a) lipoprotein by roughly a quarter, currently the biggest known effect on Lp(a) levels of any approved medication.

One study ran post hoc analyses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in the FOURIER pivotal trial of evolocumab (Repatha), with more than 27,500 randomized patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4; 376[18]:1713-22), and in the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES pivotal trial of alirocumab (Praluent), with nearly 19,000 randomized patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 29;379[22]:2097-2107). The analyses showed that, with evolocumab treatment, the incidence of VTE events fell by a statistically significant 29%, compared with patients on placebo, while in ODYSSEY OUTCOMES patients treated with alirocumab had a 33% cut in VTE events, compared with placebo-treated patients, a difference that just missed statistical significance (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046524) in analyses that were not prespecified before these trials started, Nicholas A. Marston, MD, said in a presentation of his research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

A combined analysis of 46,488 patients from both studies showed a 31% cut in VTE events with PCSK9 inhibitor treatment, a highly significant finding using VTE endpoints that were not specifically tallied nor adjudicated but collected as part of the serious adverse event reporting in the two pivotal trials, said Dr. Marston, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. This is the first report of a statistically significant link between treatment with PCSK9-inhibiting agents and a reduction in VTE, he added. Researchers from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial had reported a VTE analysis in 2019, and while data from that trial on its own showed a nominal 33% lower VTE rate with alirocumab treatment, it just missed statistical significance.

The VTE effect took about a year on treatment to start to manifest. During the first 12 months of FOURIER, the rate of VTE events among patients in the two treatment arms was virtually identical. But starting during months 13-18 on treatment, the event curves in the two arms began to increasingly diverge, and overall during the period from month 13 to the end of the study treatment with evolocumab was linked with a statistically significant 46% reduction in VTE events, compared with patients who received placebo. The results Dr. Marston reported were also published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046397).

The suggestion that this association may be linked to the impact of PCSK9 inhibitors on Lp(a) came from an additional analysis that Dr. Marston presented, which looked at the link between evolocumab use and a change in VTE event rates, compared with placebo, depending on baseline lipoprotein levels. Evolocumab treatment was associated with a roughly similar, modest, and not statistically significant reduction in VTE events, compared with placebo regardless of whether patients had baseline levels of LDL cholesterol below the median or at or above the median. In contrast, when a similar analysis divided patients based on whether their Lp(a) level at baseline was below, or at or above, the median the results showed no discernible effect of evolocumab treatment, compared with on VTE events in patients with lower baseline Lp(a), but in those with higher levels treatment with evolocumab linked with a 48% cut in VTE events, compared with placebo, a statistically significant difference.

In FOURIER, treatment with evolocumab lowered baseline Lp(a) levels by a median of 27%, compared with placebo, among the 25,096 enrolled patients who had their baseline levels measured. As previously reported, prespecified analysis of FOURIER data also showed that the impact of evolocumab, compared with placebo, on the combined rate of coronary heart disease death, MI, or need for urgent coronary revascularization was enhanced among patients with elevated baseline Lp(a) and moderated in those who entered with lower levels. Among patients who entered FOURIER with Lp(a) levels at or below the median treatment with evolocumab cut the primary endpoint by 7%, compared with placebo, a difference that was not statistically significant. Among patients who began the study with Lp(a) levels above the median, evolocumab treatment cut the primary endpoint by 23%, compared with placebo, a statistically significant effect (Circulation. 2019 Mar 19;139[12]:1483-92).

The aortic stenosis connection

A second study reported in the online scientific sessions (Abstract 914-08) used only FOURIER data, and showed that patients treated with evolocumab had a roughly similar response pattern in their incidence of aortic stenosis (AS) events as they did for VTE events.

During the first year of the study, the incidence of AS events was virtually identical among patients treated with evolocumab and those who received placebo. But after the first 12 months and through the study’s end, patients on evolocumab showed a statistically significant 52% relative reduction in AS events, compared with control patients, said Brian A. Bergmark, MD. For the entire study duration, treatment with evolocumab linked with a 34% relative reduction in AS events, compared with placebo, a difference that did not reach statistical significance, added Dr. Bergmark, an interventional cardiologist also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The observed halving in total AS events that linked with evolocumab treatment after the first year of the study included a similar-magnitude reduction specifically in the incidence of aortic valve replacement procedures in the evolocumab-treated patients.

Further analysis of both total AS events and aortic valve replacements in FOURIER patients showed that they occurred at a significantly elevated rate in patients who entered the study with higher baseline Lp(a) levels in a multivariate analysis, but a similar analysis showed no significant association between the incidence of these AS-related events and baseline levels of LDL cholesterol, he said.

The AS analysis carried the same important limitations as the VTE analysis: It ran on a post hoc basis and focused on events that were relatively uncommon and not adjudicated, Dr. Bergmark cautioned. Nonetheless, other investigators saw important potential implications from both the VTE and AS observations, with the huge caveat that they need replication in prospective studies designed to specifically address the validity of these findings.
 

What it could mean

These observed associations between PCSK9 inhibitor treatment and apparent reductions in the rate of both VTE and AS events “represent a tremendous clinical breakthrough,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who is a FOURIER coinvestigator and has led some of the Lp(a) analyses run from that study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“To date, we have not identified any therapies that slow progression of AS. Other classes of lipid-lowering therapies, such as statins, have been tested and not demonstrated a significant effect,” Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.

“For AS, the results are very intriguing. If confirmed, it could be groundbreaking. AS is the most common valve disease in the developed world, and no medical therapy exists. The potential is immense,” commented George Thanassoulis, MD, director of preventive and genomic cardiology at McGill University, Montreal. “Having a medical treatment that could slow AS progression would completely change the disease. It’s conceivable to slow the disease enough that patients may never require valve replacement.” But an interview he cautioned that, “although the results are exciting, the analysis has many limitations. What we need is a dedicated, randomized trial for AS. I hope this stimulates that.”

“For VTE, it’s an interesting finding, but I don’t think it will have clinical utility because we have good treatment for VTE,” added Dr. Thanassoulis, but others saw more opportunity from what could be a new way to reduce VTE risk.

“Given that many patients have difficulty with the bleeding risk from anticoagulants, this option [a PCSK9 inhibitor] may be quite welcome for preventing VTE,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist and VTE specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who was not involved in any of the PCSK9 inhibitor studies.

“At this time we would not suggest that PCSK9 inhibitors replace an anticoagulant for patients with an established clot or at high risk for a recurrent clot, but if patients have an indication for a PCSK9 inhibitor, the further reduction in venous clot can be viewed as an additional benefit of this therapy,” said Dr. O’Donoghue.
 

How it might work

A possible mechanism underlying a VTE effect is unclear. Results from the JUPITER trial more than a decade ago had shown a significant association between treatment with 20 mg/day of rosuvastatin and a cut in VTE episodes, compared with placebo, in a prespecified, secondary analysis of the trial with nearly 18,000 patients selected for having a relatively high level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 30;360[18]:1851-61). But a meta-analysis of 29 controlled statin trials that used a variety of statin types and dosages (and included the JUPITER results) failed to confirm a statistically significant change in VTE rates from statins, though they produced a small, nominal reduction (PLoS Med. 2012 Sep 18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001310).

Lp(a) “has long been linked to thrombosis, in particular arterial thrombosis,” so the link observed in the PCSK9 inhibitor trials “is not surprising,” said Dr. Piazza. Dr. O’Donoghue agreed that prior evidence had “suggested a prothrombotic role for Lp(a).”

Dr. Thanassoulis was more skeptical of a Lp(a) connection to VTE. “There has always been controversy regarding the prothrombotic effects of Lp(a) and whether it’s clinically relevant,” he said. “The genetic data, from Mendelian randomization studies, is not consistent” with a Lp(a) and VTE link.

The association of AS and Lp(a) may be stronger. “Our team showed that people with genetic variants that predispose to high Lp(a) have a much higher incidence of AS,” Dr. Thanassoulis noted. “We and others have also demonstrated that both Lp(a) and LDL are likely causal mediators of aortic valve calcification and stenosis.”

Dr. O’Donoghue also cited observational genetic data that linked elevated Lp(a) with AS. “Mendelian randomization studies have demonstrated that Lp(a) is a causal contributer to AS, and evolocumab reduced Lp(a) by 25%-30%, raising the possibility that Lp(a) lowering with these drugs may be the mechanism,” she said.
 

The future of Lp(a) lowering

This last point from Dr. O’Donoghue, that PCSK9 inhibitors cut Lp(a) levels by about 25%-30%, means that they are the most potent Lp(a)-lowering agents currently available, but it also leaves lots of room for other agents to do even better in cutting Lp(a).

“There are now drugs in development that block production of the Lp(a) protein and dramatically reduce its concentration, by about 80%,” Dr. O’Donoghue noted. “It will be of interest to study whether these novel therapies, now in phase 2 and phase 3 studies, have any effect on the risk for VTE and AS.”

“Several drugs in development, including antisense RNA and RNA-interfering molecules, are much more potent and lower Lp(a) by 80%-90%. Because of this potency they can completely normalize Lp(a) in most patients. For Lp(a) lowering, the future is in these new molecules. Randomized trials have started, and we will hopefully have some results in about 5 years,” said Dr. Thanassoulis.

Until then, the prospect of possibly soon documenting benefits from PCSK9 inhibitors beyond their impact on cutting LDL cholesterol raises some hope to get more bang for the considerable buck these drugs cost. But Dr. Thanassoulis was skeptical it would move the cost-benefit ratio much. “VTE and AS are relatively rare, compared with atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and therefore the added value at the population level would be small,” he predicted. But if treatment with a drug could help patients avoid surgical or percutaneous valve interventions “that could be really interesting from a cost-benefit perspective.”

FOURIER was funded by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). ODYSSEY OUTCOMES was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron, the companies that developed and market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Marston had no disclosures. Dr. Bergmark has been a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Quark, and Servier and has received research funding from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, and MedImmune. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen; has been a consultant to Janssen and Novartis; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Thanassoulis has been an adviser to and speaker for Amgen; an adviser to Ionis and Sanofi/Regeneron; a speaker on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Servier; and has received research funding from Ionis and Servier. Dr. Piazza has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex and he has received research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Ekos, Janssen, and Portola.

[email protected]

Post hoc analyses of recent large, clinical outcomes studies of PCSK9 inhibitors have revealed two tantalizing and unexpected potential benefits from these drugs: an ability to substantially reduce the incidence or severity of venous thromboembolism and aortic stenosis.

The evidence also suggests that these effects are linked to the ability of these drugs to reduce blood levels of Lp(a) lipoprotein by roughly a quarter, currently the biggest known effect on Lp(a) levels of any approved medication.

One study ran post hoc analyses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in the FOURIER pivotal trial of evolocumab (Repatha), with more than 27,500 randomized patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4; 376[18]:1713-22), and in the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES pivotal trial of alirocumab (Praluent), with nearly 19,000 randomized patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 29;379[22]:2097-2107). The analyses showed that, with evolocumab treatment, the incidence of VTE events fell by a statistically significant 29%, compared with patients on placebo, while in ODYSSEY OUTCOMES patients treated with alirocumab had a 33% cut in VTE events, compared with placebo-treated patients, a difference that just missed statistical significance (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046524) in analyses that were not prespecified before these trials started, Nicholas A. Marston, MD, said in a presentation of his research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

A combined analysis of 46,488 patients from both studies showed a 31% cut in VTE events with PCSK9 inhibitor treatment, a highly significant finding using VTE endpoints that were not specifically tallied nor adjudicated but collected as part of the serious adverse event reporting in the two pivotal trials, said Dr. Marston, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. This is the first report of a statistically significant link between treatment with PCSK9-inhibiting agents and a reduction in VTE, he added. Researchers from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial had reported a VTE analysis in 2019, and while data from that trial on its own showed a nominal 33% lower VTE rate with alirocumab treatment, it just missed statistical significance.

The VTE effect took about a year on treatment to start to manifest. During the first 12 months of FOURIER, the rate of VTE events among patients in the two treatment arms was virtually identical. But starting during months 13-18 on treatment, the event curves in the two arms began to increasingly diverge, and overall during the period from month 13 to the end of the study treatment with evolocumab was linked with a statistically significant 46% reduction in VTE events, compared with patients who received placebo. The results Dr. Marston reported were also published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046397).

The suggestion that this association may be linked to the impact of PCSK9 inhibitors on Lp(a) came from an additional analysis that Dr. Marston presented, which looked at the link between evolocumab use and a change in VTE event rates, compared with placebo, depending on baseline lipoprotein levels. Evolocumab treatment was associated with a roughly similar, modest, and not statistically significant reduction in VTE events, compared with placebo regardless of whether patients had baseline levels of LDL cholesterol below the median or at or above the median. In contrast, when a similar analysis divided patients based on whether their Lp(a) level at baseline was below, or at or above, the median the results showed no discernible effect of evolocumab treatment, compared with on VTE events in patients with lower baseline Lp(a), but in those with higher levels treatment with evolocumab linked with a 48% cut in VTE events, compared with placebo, a statistically significant difference.

In FOURIER, treatment with evolocumab lowered baseline Lp(a) levels by a median of 27%, compared with placebo, among the 25,096 enrolled patients who had their baseline levels measured. As previously reported, prespecified analysis of FOURIER data also showed that the impact of evolocumab, compared with placebo, on the combined rate of coronary heart disease death, MI, or need for urgent coronary revascularization was enhanced among patients with elevated baseline Lp(a) and moderated in those who entered with lower levels. Among patients who entered FOURIER with Lp(a) levels at or below the median treatment with evolocumab cut the primary endpoint by 7%, compared with placebo, a difference that was not statistically significant. Among patients who began the study with Lp(a) levels above the median, evolocumab treatment cut the primary endpoint by 23%, compared with placebo, a statistically significant effect (Circulation. 2019 Mar 19;139[12]:1483-92).

The aortic stenosis connection

A second study reported in the online scientific sessions (Abstract 914-08) used only FOURIER data, and showed that patients treated with evolocumab had a roughly similar response pattern in their incidence of aortic stenosis (AS) events as they did for VTE events.

During the first year of the study, the incidence of AS events was virtually identical among patients treated with evolocumab and those who received placebo. But after the first 12 months and through the study’s end, patients on evolocumab showed a statistically significant 52% relative reduction in AS events, compared with control patients, said Brian A. Bergmark, MD. For the entire study duration, treatment with evolocumab linked with a 34% relative reduction in AS events, compared with placebo, a difference that did not reach statistical significance, added Dr. Bergmark, an interventional cardiologist also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The observed halving in total AS events that linked with evolocumab treatment after the first year of the study included a similar-magnitude reduction specifically in the incidence of aortic valve replacement procedures in the evolocumab-treated patients.

Further analysis of both total AS events and aortic valve replacements in FOURIER patients showed that they occurred at a significantly elevated rate in patients who entered the study with higher baseline Lp(a) levels in a multivariate analysis, but a similar analysis showed no significant association between the incidence of these AS-related events and baseline levels of LDL cholesterol, he said.

The AS analysis carried the same important limitations as the VTE analysis: It ran on a post hoc basis and focused on events that were relatively uncommon and not adjudicated, Dr. Bergmark cautioned. Nonetheless, other investigators saw important potential implications from both the VTE and AS observations, with the huge caveat that they need replication in prospective studies designed to specifically address the validity of these findings.
 

What it could mean

These observed associations between PCSK9 inhibitor treatment and apparent reductions in the rate of both VTE and AS events “represent a tremendous clinical breakthrough,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who is a FOURIER coinvestigator and has led some of the Lp(a) analyses run from that study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“To date, we have not identified any therapies that slow progression of AS. Other classes of lipid-lowering therapies, such as statins, have been tested and not demonstrated a significant effect,” Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.

“For AS, the results are very intriguing. If confirmed, it could be groundbreaking. AS is the most common valve disease in the developed world, and no medical therapy exists. The potential is immense,” commented George Thanassoulis, MD, director of preventive and genomic cardiology at McGill University, Montreal. “Having a medical treatment that could slow AS progression would completely change the disease. It’s conceivable to slow the disease enough that patients may never require valve replacement.” But an interview he cautioned that, “although the results are exciting, the analysis has many limitations. What we need is a dedicated, randomized trial for AS. I hope this stimulates that.”

“For VTE, it’s an interesting finding, but I don’t think it will have clinical utility because we have good treatment for VTE,” added Dr. Thanassoulis, but others saw more opportunity from what could be a new way to reduce VTE risk.

“Given that many patients have difficulty with the bleeding risk from anticoagulants, this option [a PCSK9 inhibitor] may be quite welcome for preventing VTE,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist and VTE specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who was not involved in any of the PCSK9 inhibitor studies.

“At this time we would not suggest that PCSK9 inhibitors replace an anticoagulant for patients with an established clot or at high risk for a recurrent clot, but if patients have an indication for a PCSK9 inhibitor, the further reduction in venous clot can be viewed as an additional benefit of this therapy,” said Dr. O’Donoghue.
 

How it might work

A possible mechanism underlying a VTE effect is unclear. Results from the JUPITER trial more than a decade ago had shown a significant association between treatment with 20 mg/day of rosuvastatin and a cut in VTE episodes, compared with placebo, in a prespecified, secondary analysis of the trial with nearly 18,000 patients selected for having a relatively high level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 30;360[18]:1851-61). But a meta-analysis of 29 controlled statin trials that used a variety of statin types and dosages (and included the JUPITER results) failed to confirm a statistically significant change in VTE rates from statins, though they produced a small, nominal reduction (PLoS Med. 2012 Sep 18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001310).

Lp(a) “has long been linked to thrombosis, in particular arterial thrombosis,” so the link observed in the PCSK9 inhibitor trials “is not surprising,” said Dr. Piazza. Dr. O’Donoghue agreed that prior evidence had “suggested a prothrombotic role for Lp(a).”

Dr. Thanassoulis was more skeptical of a Lp(a) connection to VTE. “There has always been controversy regarding the prothrombotic effects of Lp(a) and whether it’s clinically relevant,” he said. “The genetic data, from Mendelian randomization studies, is not consistent” with a Lp(a) and VTE link.

The association of AS and Lp(a) may be stronger. “Our team showed that people with genetic variants that predispose to high Lp(a) have a much higher incidence of AS,” Dr. Thanassoulis noted. “We and others have also demonstrated that both Lp(a) and LDL are likely causal mediators of aortic valve calcification and stenosis.”

Dr. O’Donoghue also cited observational genetic data that linked elevated Lp(a) with AS. “Mendelian randomization studies have demonstrated that Lp(a) is a causal contributer to AS, and evolocumab reduced Lp(a) by 25%-30%, raising the possibility that Lp(a) lowering with these drugs may be the mechanism,” she said.
 

The future of Lp(a) lowering

This last point from Dr. O’Donoghue, that PCSK9 inhibitors cut Lp(a) levels by about 25%-30%, means that they are the most potent Lp(a)-lowering agents currently available, but it also leaves lots of room for other agents to do even better in cutting Lp(a).

“There are now drugs in development that block production of the Lp(a) protein and dramatically reduce its concentration, by about 80%,” Dr. O’Donoghue noted. “It will be of interest to study whether these novel therapies, now in phase 2 and phase 3 studies, have any effect on the risk for VTE and AS.”

“Several drugs in development, including antisense RNA and RNA-interfering molecules, are much more potent and lower Lp(a) by 80%-90%. Because of this potency they can completely normalize Lp(a) in most patients. For Lp(a) lowering, the future is in these new molecules. Randomized trials have started, and we will hopefully have some results in about 5 years,” said Dr. Thanassoulis.

Until then, the prospect of possibly soon documenting benefits from PCSK9 inhibitors beyond their impact on cutting LDL cholesterol raises some hope to get more bang for the considerable buck these drugs cost. But Dr. Thanassoulis was skeptical it would move the cost-benefit ratio much. “VTE and AS are relatively rare, compared with atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and therefore the added value at the population level would be small,” he predicted. But if treatment with a drug could help patients avoid surgical or percutaneous valve interventions “that could be really interesting from a cost-benefit perspective.”

FOURIER was funded by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). ODYSSEY OUTCOMES was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron, the companies that developed and market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Marston had no disclosures. Dr. Bergmark has been a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Quark, and Servier and has received research funding from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, and MedImmune. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen; has been a consultant to Janssen and Novartis; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Thanassoulis has been an adviser to and speaker for Amgen; an adviser to Ionis and Sanofi/Regeneron; a speaker on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Servier; and has received research funding from Ionis and Servier. Dr. Piazza has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex and he has received research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Ekos, Janssen, and Portola.

[email protected]

Post hoc analyses of recent large, clinical outcomes studies of PCSK9 inhibitors have revealed two tantalizing and unexpected potential benefits from these drugs: an ability to substantially reduce the incidence or severity of venous thromboembolism and aortic stenosis.

The evidence also suggests that these effects are linked to the ability of these drugs to reduce blood levels of Lp(a) lipoprotein by roughly a quarter, currently the biggest known effect on Lp(a) levels of any approved medication.

One study ran post hoc analyses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in the FOURIER pivotal trial of evolocumab (Repatha), with more than 27,500 randomized patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4; 376[18]:1713-22), and in the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES pivotal trial of alirocumab (Praluent), with nearly 19,000 randomized patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 29;379[22]:2097-2107). The analyses showed that, with evolocumab treatment, the incidence of VTE events fell by a statistically significant 29%, compared with patients on placebo, while in ODYSSEY OUTCOMES patients treated with alirocumab had a 33% cut in VTE events, compared with placebo-treated patients, a difference that just missed statistical significance (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046524) in analyses that were not prespecified before these trials started, Nicholas A. Marston, MD, said in a presentation of his research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

A combined analysis of 46,488 patients from both studies showed a 31% cut in VTE events with PCSK9 inhibitor treatment, a highly significant finding using VTE endpoints that were not specifically tallied nor adjudicated but collected as part of the serious adverse event reporting in the two pivotal trials, said Dr. Marston, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. This is the first report of a statistically significant link between treatment with PCSK9-inhibiting agents and a reduction in VTE, he added. Researchers from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial had reported a VTE analysis in 2019, and while data from that trial on its own showed a nominal 33% lower VTE rate with alirocumab treatment, it just missed statistical significance.

The VTE effect took about a year on treatment to start to manifest. During the first 12 months of FOURIER, the rate of VTE events among patients in the two treatment arms was virtually identical. But starting during months 13-18 on treatment, the event curves in the two arms began to increasingly diverge, and overall during the period from month 13 to the end of the study treatment with evolocumab was linked with a statistically significant 46% reduction in VTE events, compared with patients who received placebo. The results Dr. Marston reported were also published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046397).

The suggestion that this association may be linked to the impact of PCSK9 inhibitors on Lp(a) came from an additional analysis that Dr. Marston presented, which looked at the link between evolocumab use and a change in VTE event rates, compared with placebo, depending on baseline lipoprotein levels. Evolocumab treatment was associated with a roughly similar, modest, and not statistically significant reduction in VTE events, compared with placebo regardless of whether patients had baseline levels of LDL cholesterol below the median or at or above the median. In contrast, when a similar analysis divided patients based on whether their Lp(a) level at baseline was below, or at or above, the median the results showed no discernible effect of evolocumab treatment, compared with on VTE events in patients with lower baseline Lp(a), but in those with higher levels treatment with evolocumab linked with a 48% cut in VTE events, compared with placebo, a statistically significant difference.

In FOURIER, treatment with evolocumab lowered baseline Lp(a) levels by a median of 27%, compared with placebo, among the 25,096 enrolled patients who had their baseline levels measured. As previously reported, prespecified analysis of FOURIER data also showed that the impact of evolocumab, compared with placebo, on the combined rate of coronary heart disease death, MI, or need for urgent coronary revascularization was enhanced among patients with elevated baseline Lp(a) and moderated in those who entered with lower levels. Among patients who entered FOURIER with Lp(a) levels at or below the median treatment with evolocumab cut the primary endpoint by 7%, compared with placebo, a difference that was not statistically significant. Among patients who began the study with Lp(a) levels above the median, evolocumab treatment cut the primary endpoint by 23%, compared with placebo, a statistically significant effect (Circulation. 2019 Mar 19;139[12]:1483-92).

The aortic stenosis connection

A second study reported in the online scientific sessions (Abstract 914-08) used only FOURIER data, and showed that patients treated with evolocumab had a roughly similar response pattern in their incidence of aortic stenosis (AS) events as they did for VTE events.

During the first year of the study, the incidence of AS events was virtually identical among patients treated with evolocumab and those who received placebo. But after the first 12 months and through the study’s end, patients on evolocumab showed a statistically significant 52% relative reduction in AS events, compared with control patients, said Brian A. Bergmark, MD. For the entire study duration, treatment with evolocumab linked with a 34% relative reduction in AS events, compared with placebo, a difference that did not reach statistical significance, added Dr. Bergmark, an interventional cardiologist also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The observed halving in total AS events that linked with evolocumab treatment after the first year of the study included a similar-magnitude reduction specifically in the incidence of aortic valve replacement procedures in the evolocumab-treated patients.

Further analysis of both total AS events and aortic valve replacements in FOURIER patients showed that they occurred at a significantly elevated rate in patients who entered the study with higher baseline Lp(a) levels in a multivariate analysis, but a similar analysis showed no significant association between the incidence of these AS-related events and baseline levels of LDL cholesterol, he said.

The AS analysis carried the same important limitations as the VTE analysis: It ran on a post hoc basis and focused on events that were relatively uncommon and not adjudicated, Dr. Bergmark cautioned. Nonetheless, other investigators saw important potential implications from both the VTE and AS observations, with the huge caveat that they need replication in prospective studies designed to specifically address the validity of these findings.
 

What it could mean

These observed associations between PCSK9 inhibitor treatment and apparent reductions in the rate of both VTE and AS events “represent a tremendous clinical breakthrough,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who is a FOURIER coinvestigator and has led some of the Lp(a) analyses run from that study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“To date, we have not identified any therapies that slow progression of AS. Other classes of lipid-lowering therapies, such as statins, have been tested and not demonstrated a significant effect,” Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.

“For AS, the results are very intriguing. If confirmed, it could be groundbreaking. AS is the most common valve disease in the developed world, and no medical therapy exists. The potential is immense,” commented George Thanassoulis, MD, director of preventive and genomic cardiology at McGill University, Montreal. “Having a medical treatment that could slow AS progression would completely change the disease. It’s conceivable to slow the disease enough that patients may never require valve replacement.” But an interview he cautioned that, “although the results are exciting, the analysis has many limitations. What we need is a dedicated, randomized trial for AS. I hope this stimulates that.”

“For VTE, it’s an interesting finding, but I don’t think it will have clinical utility because we have good treatment for VTE,” added Dr. Thanassoulis, but others saw more opportunity from what could be a new way to reduce VTE risk.

“Given that many patients have difficulty with the bleeding risk from anticoagulants, this option [a PCSK9 inhibitor] may be quite welcome for preventing VTE,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist and VTE specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who was not involved in any of the PCSK9 inhibitor studies.

“At this time we would not suggest that PCSK9 inhibitors replace an anticoagulant for patients with an established clot or at high risk for a recurrent clot, but if patients have an indication for a PCSK9 inhibitor, the further reduction in venous clot can be viewed as an additional benefit of this therapy,” said Dr. O’Donoghue.
 

How it might work

A possible mechanism underlying a VTE effect is unclear. Results from the JUPITER trial more than a decade ago had shown a significant association between treatment with 20 mg/day of rosuvastatin and a cut in VTE episodes, compared with placebo, in a prespecified, secondary analysis of the trial with nearly 18,000 patients selected for having a relatively high level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 30;360[18]:1851-61). But a meta-analysis of 29 controlled statin trials that used a variety of statin types and dosages (and included the JUPITER results) failed to confirm a statistically significant change in VTE rates from statins, though they produced a small, nominal reduction (PLoS Med. 2012 Sep 18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001310).

Lp(a) “has long been linked to thrombosis, in particular arterial thrombosis,” so the link observed in the PCSK9 inhibitor trials “is not surprising,” said Dr. Piazza. Dr. O’Donoghue agreed that prior evidence had “suggested a prothrombotic role for Lp(a).”

Dr. Thanassoulis was more skeptical of a Lp(a) connection to VTE. “There has always been controversy regarding the prothrombotic effects of Lp(a) and whether it’s clinically relevant,” he said. “The genetic data, from Mendelian randomization studies, is not consistent” with a Lp(a) and VTE link.

The association of AS and Lp(a) may be stronger. “Our team showed that people with genetic variants that predispose to high Lp(a) have a much higher incidence of AS,” Dr. Thanassoulis noted. “We and others have also demonstrated that both Lp(a) and LDL are likely causal mediators of aortic valve calcification and stenosis.”

Dr. O’Donoghue also cited observational genetic data that linked elevated Lp(a) with AS. “Mendelian randomization studies have demonstrated that Lp(a) is a causal contributer to AS, and evolocumab reduced Lp(a) by 25%-30%, raising the possibility that Lp(a) lowering with these drugs may be the mechanism,” she said.
 

The future of Lp(a) lowering

This last point from Dr. O’Donoghue, that PCSK9 inhibitors cut Lp(a) levels by about 25%-30%, means that they are the most potent Lp(a)-lowering agents currently available, but it also leaves lots of room for other agents to do even better in cutting Lp(a).

“There are now drugs in development that block production of the Lp(a) protein and dramatically reduce its concentration, by about 80%,” Dr. O’Donoghue noted. “It will be of interest to study whether these novel therapies, now in phase 2 and phase 3 studies, have any effect on the risk for VTE and AS.”

“Several drugs in development, including antisense RNA and RNA-interfering molecules, are much more potent and lower Lp(a) by 80%-90%. Because of this potency they can completely normalize Lp(a) in most patients. For Lp(a) lowering, the future is in these new molecules. Randomized trials have started, and we will hopefully have some results in about 5 years,” said Dr. Thanassoulis.

Until then, the prospect of possibly soon documenting benefits from PCSK9 inhibitors beyond their impact on cutting LDL cholesterol raises some hope to get more bang for the considerable buck these drugs cost. But Dr. Thanassoulis was skeptical it would move the cost-benefit ratio much. “VTE and AS are relatively rare, compared with atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and therefore the added value at the population level would be small,” he predicted. But if treatment with a drug could help patients avoid surgical or percutaneous valve interventions “that could be really interesting from a cost-benefit perspective.”

FOURIER was funded by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). ODYSSEY OUTCOMES was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron, the companies that developed and market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Marston had no disclosures. Dr. Bergmark has been a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Quark, and Servier and has received research funding from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, and MedImmune. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen; has been a consultant to Janssen and Novartis; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Thanassoulis has been an adviser to and speaker for Amgen; an adviser to Ionis and Sanofi/Regeneron; a speaker on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Servier; and has received research funding from Ionis and Servier. Dr. Piazza has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex and he has received research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Ekos, Janssen, and Portola.

[email protected]

The VOYAGER PAD results from more than 6,500 patients created the biggest evidence base by far ever collected from patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) who underwent a vascular intervention, and showed that the combination of twice-daily rivaroxaban and once-daily aspirin was safe and more effective than aspirin alone for reducing future thrombotic and ischemic events.

Following that report on March 28, a prespecified subgroup analysis presented the next day showed that adding clopidogrel to this two-drug combination produced no added efficacy but caused additional bleeding episodes, suggesting that the common practice of using clopidogrel plus aspirin in these patients, especially those who receive a stent in a peripheral artery, should either fall by the wayside or be used very briefly.

“In the absence of clear benefit, clopidogrel exposure along with aspirin and rivaroxaban should be minimized or avoided to reduce this risk,” William R. Hiatt, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But he also cautioned that “we did not control for clopidogrel use, and so the patients who received clopidogrel look different [from patients who did not receive clopidogrel]. We must be cautious in interpreting differences between patients on or off clopidogrel,” warned Dr. Hiatt, a lead investigator for VOYAGER PAD, professor for cardiovascular research at the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora and president of the affiliated Colorado Prevention Center.

In addition to this substantial caveat, the finding that clopidogrel appeared to add no extra benefit to the rivaroxaban/aspirin regimen “contradicts some dogmas that have been in the field for decades,” Dr. Hiatt said. Use of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), in this setting usually aspirin and clopidogrel, in patients who have just undergone lower-extremity revascularization is “current dogma,” even though it is not based on any direct evidence for efficacy, but instead came on the scene as “an extrapolation from the coronary artery literature, where it does have some benefit, particularly after percutaneous coronary intervention,” he explained.

The only reported study results to examine use of DAPT in patients who underwent peripheral artery revascularization focused entirely on patients who had a surgical procedure and showed no added benefit from DAPT over aspirin only in a multicenter, randomized trial with 851 patients (J Vasc Surg. 2010 Oct;52[4]:825-33), Dr. Hiatt noted. In VOYAGER PAD, two-thirds of all patients underwent an endovascular, not surgical, peripheral intervention, and among those treated with clopidogrel, 91% had endovascular treatment.

“We’re not saying don’t use DAPT, but patients on three drugs are at higher bleeding risk than patients on two drugs. I think our data also suggest starting rivaroxaban immediately after a procedure [as was done in VOYAGER PAD], and not waiting to complete a course of DAPT,” Dr. Hiatt said.

Other experts embraced Dr. Hiatt’s take on these findings, while warning that it may take some time for the message to penetrate into practice.

The overall VOYAGER PAD results “are practice changing for vascular interventions; it was by an order of magnitude the largest vascular intervention trial ever conducted,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a designated discussant, interventional cardiologist, and director of endovascular services at New York–Presbyterian Medical Center. “The data suggest that the value of clopidogrel is questionable, but the added hazard is not questionable” when given to patients on top of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The results “certainly beg the question of whether one should use DAPT at all, and if so, for how long.”

Use of DAPT in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization, especially patients receiving a stent, has been “dogma,” Dr. Parikh agreed. “It’s been pounded into our heads that DAPT is standard care, so it will take some time to penetrate into the practicing community.”

“Could there be patients who could benefit from triple therapy? That’s possible, but it needs testing,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “We’ve made terrific strides with the results from VOYAGER PAD,” and from the earlier COMPASS trial, which proved the benefit of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease including many PAD patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). Use of rivaroxaban and aspirin in PAD patients based on the COMPASS results “is beginning to make an impact, but has a long way to go,” Dr. Creager said in an interview.

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration gave rivaroxaban a revised labeling that included an indication for patients with PAD based on the COMPASS findings. The VOYAGER PAD and COMPASS trials are especially noteworthy because “they opened a whole area [of study] in patients with peripheral vascular disease, ” he added.

The prespecified analysis that Dr. Hiatt reported analyzed outcomes among the 51% of patients enrolled in VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) who received clopidogrel during follow-up at the discretion of their treating physician and the outcomes among the remainder who did not. The two subgroups showed several statistically significant differences in the prevalence of various comorbidities and in some baseline demographic and clinical metrics, and the analyses that Dr. Hiatt reported did not attempt to correct for these differences. Patients who received clopidogrel had the drug on board for a median of 29 days, and about 58% received it for 30 days or less.

The main finding of his analysis was that “adding clopidogrel did not modify benefit at all” from the perspective of the primary endpoint of VOYAGER PAD, the incidence of a five-item list of adverse events (acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death) during a median follow-up of 28 months (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052), said Dr. Hiatt. Among patients on clopidogrel, those treated with both rivaroxaban and aspirin had a 16.0% incidence of the primary endpoint, compared with an 18.3% rate among patients on aspirin only, for a 15% relative risk reduction, identical to the study’s primary result. Among patients not on clopidogrel, the primary endpoint occurred in 18.7% of patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin and in 21.5% of those on aspirin only, a 14% relative risk reduction. The analyses also showed that adding clopidogrel appeared to increase the rate of bleeding episodes, particularly the incidence of major bleeds by the criteria of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), which rose among patients on aspirin alone from 3.3% without clopidogrel treatment to 4.9% with clopidogrel, and in patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin these major bleeds increased from 5.4% with no clopidogrel to 6.5% with clopidogrel.

An especially revealing further analysis showed that, among those who also received rivaroxaban and aspirin, clopidogrel treatment for more than 30 days led to substantially more bleeding problems, compared with patients who received the drug for 30 days or less. Patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days as part of a triple-drug regimen had a 3.0% rate of major ISTH bleeds during 180 days of follow-up, compared with a 0.9% rate for patients in the aspirin-alone group who also received clopidogrel, a 2.1% between-group difference. In contrast, the difference in major ISTH bleeds between the two treatment arms in the subgroup who received clopidogrel for 30 days or less was 0.7%.

“What’s inarguable is that the course of clopidogrel should be as short as possible, probably not more than 30 days unless there is a real extenuating rationale,” commented designated discussant Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Hiatt leads has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen and from Amgen. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to Terumo; has received research funding from Shockwave, Surmodics, and Trireme; has worked on trial monitoring for Boston Scientific and Silk Road; and has had other financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Piazza has received research grants from Bayer and Janssen, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Diiachi, EKOS, and Portola, and he has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hiatt WR et al. ACC 20, Abstract 406-13.

The VOYAGER PAD results from more than 6,500 patients created the biggest evidence base by far ever collected from patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) who underwent a vascular intervention, and showed that the combination of twice-daily rivaroxaban and once-daily aspirin was safe and more effective than aspirin alone for reducing future thrombotic and ischemic events.

Following that report on March 28, a prespecified subgroup analysis presented the next day showed that adding clopidogrel to this two-drug combination produced no added efficacy but caused additional bleeding episodes, suggesting that the common practice of using clopidogrel plus aspirin in these patients, especially those who receive a stent in a peripheral artery, should either fall by the wayside or be used very briefly.

“In the absence of clear benefit, clopidogrel exposure along with aspirin and rivaroxaban should be minimized or avoided to reduce this risk,” William R. Hiatt, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But he also cautioned that “we did not control for clopidogrel use, and so the patients who received clopidogrel look different [from patients who did not receive clopidogrel]. We must be cautious in interpreting differences between patients on or off clopidogrel,” warned Dr. Hiatt, a lead investigator for VOYAGER PAD, professor for cardiovascular research at the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora and president of the affiliated Colorado Prevention Center.

In addition to this substantial caveat, the finding that clopidogrel appeared to add no extra benefit to the rivaroxaban/aspirin regimen “contradicts some dogmas that have been in the field for decades,” Dr. Hiatt said. Use of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), in this setting usually aspirin and clopidogrel, in patients who have just undergone lower-extremity revascularization is “current dogma,” even though it is not based on any direct evidence for efficacy, but instead came on the scene as “an extrapolation from the coronary artery literature, where it does have some benefit, particularly after percutaneous coronary intervention,” he explained.

The only reported study results to examine use of DAPT in patients who underwent peripheral artery revascularization focused entirely on patients who had a surgical procedure and showed no added benefit from DAPT over aspirin only in a multicenter, randomized trial with 851 patients (J Vasc Surg. 2010 Oct;52[4]:825-33), Dr. Hiatt noted. In VOYAGER PAD, two-thirds of all patients underwent an endovascular, not surgical, peripheral intervention, and among those treated with clopidogrel, 91% had endovascular treatment.

“We’re not saying don’t use DAPT, but patients on three drugs are at higher bleeding risk than patients on two drugs. I think our data also suggest starting rivaroxaban immediately after a procedure [as was done in VOYAGER PAD], and not waiting to complete a course of DAPT,” Dr. Hiatt said.

Other experts embraced Dr. Hiatt’s take on these findings, while warning that it may take some time for the message to penetrate into practice.

The overall VOYAGER PAD results “are practice changing for vascular interventions; it was by an order of magnitude the largest vascular intervention trial ever conducted,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a designated discussant, interventional cardiologist, and director of endovascular services at New York–Presbyterian Medical Center. “The data suggest that the value of clopidogrel is questionable, but the added hazard is not questionable” when given to patients on top of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The results “certainly beg the question of whether one should use DAPT at all, and if so, for how long.”

Use of DAPT in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization, especially patients receiving a stent, has been “dogma,” Dr. Parikh agreed. “It’s been pounded into our heads that DAPT is standard care, so it will take some time to penetrate into the practicing community.”

“Could there be patients who could benefit from triple therapy? That’s possible, but it needs testing,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “We’ve made terrific strides with the results from VOYAGER PAD,” and from the earlier COMPASS trial, which proved the benefit of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease including many PAD patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). Use of rivaroxaban and aspirin in PAD patients based on the COMPASS results “is beginning to make an impact, but has a long way to go,” Dr. Creager said in an interview.

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration gave rivaroxaban a revised labeling that included an indication for patients with PAD based on the COMPASS findings. The VOYAGER PAD and COMPASS trials are especially noteworthy because “they opened a whole area [of study] in patients with peripheral vascular disease, ” he added.

The prespecified analysis that Dr. Hiatt reported analyzed outcomes among the 51% of patients enrolled in VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) who received clopidogrel during follow-up at the discretion of their treating physician and the outcomes among the remainder who did not. The two subgroups showed several statistically significant differences in the prevalence of various comorbidities and in some baseline demographic and clinical metrics, and the analyses that Dr. Hiatt reported did not attempt to correct for these differences. Patients who received clopidogrel had the drug on board for a median of 29 days, and about 58% received it for 30 days or less.

The main finding of his analysis was that “adding clopidogrel did not modify benefit at all” from the perspective of the primary endpoint of VOYAGER PAD, the incidence of a five-item list of adverse events (acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death) during a median follow-up of 28 months (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052), said Dr. Hiatt. Among patients on clopidogrel, those treated with both rivaroxaban and aspirin had a 16.0% incidence of the primary endpoint, compared with an 18.3% rate among patients on aspirin only, for a 15% relative risk reduction, identical to the study’s primary result. Among patients not on clopidogrel, the primary endpoint occurred in 18.7% of patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin and in 21.5% of those on aspirin only, a 14% relative risk reduction. The analyses also showed that adding clopidogrel appeared to increase the rate of bleeding episodes, particularly the incidence of major bleeds by the criteria of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), which rose among patients on aspirin alone from 3.3% without clopidogrel treatment to 4.9% with clopidogrel, and in patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin these major bleeds increased from 5.4% with no clopidogrel to 6.5% with clopidogrel.

An especially revealing further analysis showed that, among those who also received rivaroxaban and aspirin, clopidogrel treatment for more than 30 days led to substantially more bleeding problems, compared with patients who received the drug for 30 days or less. Patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days as part of a triple-drug regimen had a 3.0% rate of major ISTH bleeds during 180 days of follow-up, compared with a 0.9% rate for patients in the aspirin-alone group who also received clopidogrel, a 2.1% between-group difference. In contrast, the difference in major ISTH bleeds between the two treatment arms in the subgroup who received clopidogrel for 30 days or less was 0.7%.

“What’s inarguable is that the course of clopidogrel should be as short as possible, probably not more than 30 days unless there is a real extenuating rationale,” commented designated discussant Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Hiatt leads has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen and from Amgen. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to Terumo; has received research funding from Shockwave, Surmodics, and Trireme; has worked on trial monitoring for Boston Scientific and Silk Road; and has had other financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Piazza has received research grants from Bayer and Janssen, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Diiachi, EKOS, and Portola, and he has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hiatt WR et al. ACC 20, Abstract 406-13.

The VOYAGER PAD results from more than 6,500 patients created the biggest evidence base by far ever collected from patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) who underwent a vascular intervention, and showed that the combination of twice-daily rivaroxaban and once-daily aspirin was safe and more effective than aspirin alone for reducing future thrombotic and ischemic events.

Following that report on March 28, a prespecified subgroup analysis presented the next day showed that adding clopidogrel to this two-drug combination produced no added efficacy but caused additional bleeding episodes, suggesting that the common practice of using clopidogrel plus aspirin in these patients, especially those who receive a stent in a peripheral artery, should either fall by the wayside or be used very briefly.

“In the absence of clear benefit, clopidogrel exposure along with aspirin and rivaroxaban should be minimized or avoided to reduce this risk,” William R. Hiatt, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But he also cautioned that “we did not control for clopidogrel use, and so the patients who received clopidogrel look different [from patients who did not receive clopidogrel]. We must be cautious in interpreting differences between patients on or off clopidogrel,” warned Dr. Hiatt, a lead investigator for VOYAGER PAD, professor for cardiovascular research at the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora and president of the affiliated Colorado Prevention Center.

In addition to this substantial caveat, the finding that clopidogrel appeared to add no extra benefit to the rivaroxaban/aspirin regimen “contradicts some dogmas that have been in the field for decades,” Dr. Hiatt said. Use of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), in this setting usually aspirin and clopidogrel, in patients who have just undergone lower-extremity revascularization is “current dogma,” even though it is not based on any direct evidence for efficacy, but instead came on the scene as “an extrapolation from the coronary artery literature, where it does have some benefit, particularly after percutaneous coronary intervention,” he explained.

The only reported study results to examine use of DAPT in patients who underwent peripheral artery revascularization focused entirely on patients who had a surgical procedure and showed no added benefit from DAPT over aspirin only in a multicenter, randomized trial with 851 patients (J Vasc Surg. 2010 Oct;52[4]:825-33), Dr. Hiatt noted. In VOYAGER PAD, two-thirds of all patients underwent an endovascular, not surgical, peripheral intervention, and among those treated with clopidogrel, 91% had endovascular treatment.

“We’re not saying don’t use DAPT, but patients on three drugs are at higher bleeding risk than patients on two drugs. I think our data also suggest starting rivaroxaban immediately after a procedure [as was done in VOYAGER PAD], and not waiting to complete a course of DAPT,” Dr. Hiatt said.

Other experts embraced Dr. Hiatt’s take on these findings, while warning that it may take some time for the message to penetrate into practice.

The overall VOYAGER PAD results “are practice changing for vascular interventions; it was by an order of magnitude the largest vascular intervention trial ever conducted,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a designated discussant, interventional cardiologist, and director of endovascular services at New York–Presbyterian Medical Center. “The data suggest that the value of clopidogrel is questionable, but the added hazard is not questionable” when given to patients on top of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The results “certainly beg the question of whether one should use DAPT at all, and if so, for how long.”

Use of DAPT in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization, especially patients receiving a stent, has been “dogma,” Dr. Parikh agreed. “It’s been pounded into our heads that DAPT is standard care, so it will take some time to penetrate into the practicing community.”

“Could there be patients who could benefit from triple therapy? That’s possible, but it needs testing,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “We’ve made terrific strides with the results from VOYAGER PAD,” and from the earlier COMPASS trial, which proved the benefit of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease including many PAD patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). Use of rivaroxaban and aspirin in PAD patients based on the COMPASS results “is beginning to make an impact, but has a long way to go,” Dr. Creager said in an interview.

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration gave rivaroxaban a revised labeling that included an indication for patients with PAD based on the COMPASS findings. The VOYAGER PAD and COMPASS trials are especially noteworthy because “they opened a whole area [of study] in patients with peripheral vascular disease, ” he added.

The prespecified analysis that Dr. Hiatt reported analyzed outcomes among the 51% of patients enrolled in VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) who received clopidogrel during follow-up at the discretion of their treating physician and the outcomes among the remainder who did not. The two subgroups showed several statistically significant differences in the prevalence of various comorbidities and in some baseline demographic and clinical metrics, and the analyses that Dr. Hiatt reported did not attempt to correct for these differences. Patients who received clopidogrel had the drug on board for a median of 29 days, and about 58% received it for 30 days or less.

The main finding of his analysis was that “adding clopidogrel did not modify benefit at all” from the perspective of the primary endpoint of VOYAGER PAD, the incidence of a five-item list of adverse events (acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death) during a median follow-up of 28 months (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052), said Dr. Hiatt. Among patients on clopidogrel, those treated with both rivaroxaban and aspirin had a 16.0% incidence of the primary endpoint, compared with an 18.3% rate among patients on aspirin only, for a 15% relative risk reduction, identical to the study’s primary result. Among patients not on clopidogrel, the primary endpoint occurred in 18.7% of patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin and in 21.5% of those on aspirin only, a 14% relative risk reduction. The analyses also showed that adding clopidogrel appeared to increase the rate of bleeding episodes, particularly the incidence of major bleeds by the criteria of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), which rose among patients on aspirin alone from 3.3% without clopidogrel treatment to 4.9% with clopidogrel, and in patients on rivaroxaban plus aspirin these major bleeds increased from 5.4% with no clopidogrel to 6.5% with clopidogrel.

An especially revealing further analysis showed that, among those who also received rivaroxaban and aspirin, clopidogrel treatment for more than 30 days led to substantially more bleeding problems, compared with patients who received the drug for 30 days or less. Patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days as part of a triple-drug regimen had a 3.0% rate of major ISTH bleeds during 180 days of follow-up, compared with a 0.9% rate for patients in the aspirin-alone group who also received clopidogrel, a 2.1% between-group difference. In contrast, the difference in major ISTH bleeds between the two treatment arms in the subgroup who received clopidogrel for 30 days or less was 0.7%.

“What’s inarguable is that the course of clopidogrel should be as short as possible, probably not more than 30 days unless there is a real extenuating rationale,” commented designated discussant Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Hiatt leads has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen and from Amgen. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to Terumo; has received research funding from Shockwave, Surmodics, and Trireme; has worked on trial monitoring for Boston Scientific and Silk Road; and has had other financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Piazza has received research grants from Bayer and Janssen, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Diiachi, EKOS, and Portola, and he has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hiatt WR et al. ACC 20, Abstract 406-13.

Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.

Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).

The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events). 

There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).

However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.

Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.

The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.

“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.

“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”

The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.

Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.

The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).

During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.

“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.

Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.

Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.

“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”

As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”

Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine  in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.

Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.

Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.

She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”

Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.

Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.

The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.

Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).

The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events). 

There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).

However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.

Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.

The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.

“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.

“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”

The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.

Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.

The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).

During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.

“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.

Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.

Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.

“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”

As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”

Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine  in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.

Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.

Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.

She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”

Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.

Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.

The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.

Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).

The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events). 

There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).

However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.

Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.

The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.

“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.

“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”

The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.

Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.

The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).

During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.

“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.

Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.

Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.

“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”

As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”

Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine  in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.

Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.

Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.

She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”

Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.

Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.

The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the COMPASS trial of patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease (PAD), the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice daily, provided a larger absolute benefit on cardiovascular endpoints — including a threefold greater reduction in all-cause mortality — in patients with diabetes compared with the overall population.

The results of the diabetes subset of the COMPASS trial were presented by Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, Massachusetts, on March 28 at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). They were also simultaneously published online in Circulation.

“Use of dual pathway inhibition with low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is particularly attractive in high-risk patients such as those with diabetes,” Bhatt concluded.

The COMPASS trial was first reported in 2017 and showed a new low dose of rivaroxaban (2.5-mg twice-daily; Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) plus aspirin, 100 mg once daily, was associated with a reduction in ischemic events and mortality and a superior net clinical benefit, balancing ischemic benefit with severe bleeding, compared with aspirin alone for secondary prevention in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.

But clinicians have been slow to prescribe rivaroxaban in this new and very large population.

“It’s been more than 2 years now since main COMPASS results, and there isn’t a sense that this therapy has really caught on,” chair of the current ACC session at which the diabetes subgroup results were presented, Hadley Wilson, MD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina, commented:

He asked Bhatt whether the diabetes subgroup may be “the tipping point that will make people aware of rivaroxaban and then that may trickle down to other patients.”

Bhatt said that he hoped that would be the case. “We as a steering committee of this trial could say the results were positive so rivaroxaban should now be used in everyone with stable coronary or peripheral arterial disease, but that is impractical and as you out point out it hasn’t happened,” he replied.

“In PAD/vascular medicine we have embraced this new therapy. In the broader cardiology world there are a lot of patients with stable coronary arterial disease at high ischemic risk who could take rivaroxaban, but its use is bound to be limited by it being a branded drug and the fact that there is a bleeding risk,” Bhatt explained.

“I think we need to identify patients with the highest ischemic risk and focus drugs such as these with a financial cost and a bleeding risk on those who most likely will derive the greatest absolute reduction in risk,” he said. “The PAD subgroup is one group where this is the case, and now we have shown the diabetes subgroup is another. And there is no incremental bleeding risk in this group over the whole population, so they get a much greater benefit without a greater risk. I hope this helps get rivaroxaban at the new lower dose used much more often.”

A total of 18,278 patients were randomly assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or aspirin alone in the COMPASS trial. Of these, 6922 had diabetes mellitus at baseline and 11,356 did not have diabetes.

Results from the current analysis show a consistent and similar relative risk reduction for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs placebo plus aspirin in patients both with and without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, with a hazard ratio of 0.74 for patients with diabetes and 0.77 for those without diabetes, the researchers report.

Because of the higher baseline risk in the diabetes subgroup, these patients had numerically larger absolute risk reductions with rivaroxaban than those without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint at 3 years (2.3% vs 1.4%) and for all-cause mortality (1.9% vs 0.6%).

These results translate into a number needed to treat (NNT) with rivaroxaban for 3 years to prevent one CV death, MI, or stroke of 44 for the diabetes group vs 73 for the nondiabetes group; the NNT to prevent one all-cause death was 54 for the diabetes group vs 167 for the nondiabetes group, the authors write.

Because the bleeding hazards were similar among patients with and without diabetes, the absolute net clinical benefit (MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, or bleeding leading to death or symptomatic bleeding into a critical organ) for rivaroxaban was “particularly favorable” in the diabetes group (2.7% fewer events in the diabetes group vs 1.0% fewer events in the nondiabetes group), they add.

Panelist at the ACC Featured Clinical Research session at which these results were presented, Jennifer Robinson, MD, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, asked Bhatt how clinicians were supposed to decide which of the many new agents now becoming available for patients with stable coronary artery disease to prescribe first.

“We often forget about rivaroxaban when we’re thinking about what to add next for our secondary prevention patients,” she said. “You also led the REDUCE-IT trial showing benefit of icosapent ethyl, icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl and there is also ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors. For your patients with coronary disease who are already on a high dose statin which one of these would you add next?”

“That is what physicians need to ponder all the time,” Bhatt replied. “And when a patient has several risk factors that are not well controlled, I guess it’s all important. I go through a checklist with my patients and try and figure what they’re not on that could further reduce their risk.”

“In the COMPASS trial there was an overall positive result with rivaroxaban in the whole population. And now we have shown that patients with diabetes had an even greater absolute risk reduction. That pattern has also been seen with other classes of agents including the statins, PCSK9 inhibitors, and icosapent ethyl,” Bhatt noted.

“In patients with diabetes, I will usually target whatever is standing out most at that time. If their glycemic control is completely out of whack, then that is what I would focus on first, and these days often with a SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. If the LDL was out of control, I would add ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor. If the triglycerides were high, I would add icosapent ethyl. If multiple things were out of control, I would usually focus on the number most out of kilter first and try not to forget about everything else.”

But Bhatt noted that the challenge with rivaroxaban is that there is no test of thrombosis risk that would prompt the physician to take action. “Basically, the doctor just has to remember to do it. In that regard I would consider whether patients are at low bleeding risk and are they still at high ischemic risk despite controlling other risk factors and, if so, then I would add this low dose of rivaroxaban.”

Another panel member, Sekar Kathiresan, MD, asked Bhatt whether he recommended using available scores to assess the bleeding/thrombosis risk/benefits of adding an antithrombotic.

Bhatt replied: “That’s a terrific question. I guess the right answer is that we should be doing that, but in reality I have to concede that I don’t use these scores. They have shown appropriate C statistics in populations, but they are not fantastic in individual patients.”

“I have to confess that I use the eyeball test. There is nothing as good at predicting future bleeding as past bleeding. So if a patient has had bleeding problems on aspirin alone I wouldn’t add rivaroxaban. But if a patient hasn’t bled before, especially if they had some experience of dual antiplatelet therapy, then they would be good candidates for a low vascular dose of rivaroxaban,” he said.

“It is not as easy as with other drugs as there is always a bleeding trade-off with an antithrombotic. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So patients need careful assessment when considering prescribing rivaroxaban and regular reassessment over time to check if they have had any bleeding,” he added.

The COMPASS study was funded by Bayer. Bhatt reports honoraria from Bayer via the Population Health Research Institute for his role on the COMPASS trial and other research funding from Bayer to the Brigham & Women’s Hospital.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 20-LB-20544-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

Circulation. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the COMPASS trial of patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease (PAD), the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice daily, provided a larger absolute benefit on cardiovascular endpoints — including a threefold greater reduction in all-cause mortality — in patients with diabetes compared with the overall population.

The results of the diabetes subset of the COMPASS trial were presented by Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, Massachusetts, on March 28 at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). They were also simultaneously published online in Circulation.

“Use of dual pathway inhibition with low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is particularly attractive in high-risk patients such as those with diabetes,” Bhatt concluded.

The COMPASS trial was first reported in 2017 and showed a new low dose of rivaroxaban (2.5-mg twice-daily; Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) plus aspirin, 100 mg once daily, was associated with a reduction in ischemic events and mortality and a superior net clinical benefit, balancing ischemic benefit with severe bleeding, compared with aspirin alone for secondary prevention in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.

But clinicians have been slow to prescribe rivaroxaban in this new and very large population.

“It’s been more than 2 years now since main COMPASS results, and there isn’t a sense that this therapy has really caught on,” chair of the current ACC session at which the diabetes subgroup results were presented, Hadley Wilson, MD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina, commented:

He asked Bhatt whether the diabetes subgroup may be “the tipping point that will make people aware of rivaroxaban and then that may trickle down to other patients.”

Bhatt said that he hoped that would be the case. “We as a steering committee of this trial could say the results were positive so rivaroxaban should now be used in everyone with stable coronary or peripheral arterial disease, but that is impractical and as you out point out it hasn’t happened,” he replied.

“In PAD/vascular medicine we have embraced this new therapy. In the broader cardiology world there are a lot of patients with stable coronary arterial disease at high ischemic risk who could take rivaroxaban, but its use is bound to be limited by it being a branded drug and the fact that there is a bleeding risk,” Bhatt explained.

“I think we need to identify patients with the highest ischemic risk and focus drugs such as these with a financial cost and a bleeding risk on those who most likely will derive the greatest absolute reduction in risk,” he said. “The PAD subgroup is one group where this is the case, and now we have shown the diabetes subgroup is another. And there is no incremental bleeding risk in this group over the whole population, so they get a much greater benefit without a greater risk. I hope this helps get rivaroxaban at the new lower dose used much more often.”

A total of 18,278 patients were randomly assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or aspirin alone in the COMPASS trial. Of these, 6922 had diabetes mellitus at baseline and 11,356 did not have diabetes.

Results from the current analysis show a consistent and similar relative risk reduction for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs placebo plus aspirin in patients both with and without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, with a hazard ratio of 0.74 for patients with diabetes and 0.77 for those without diabetes, the researchers report.

Because of the higher baseline risk in the diabetes subgroup, these patients had numerically larger absolute risk reductions with rivaroxaban than those without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint at 3 years (2.3% vs 1.4%) and for all-cause mortality (1.9% vs 0.6%).

These results translate into a number needed to treat (NNT) with rivaroxaban for 3 years to prevent one CV death, MI, or stroke of 44 for the diabetes group vs 73 for the nondiabetes group; the NNT to prevent one all-cause death was 54 for the diabetes group vs 167 for the nondiabetes group, the authors write.

Because the bleeding hazards were similar among patients with and without diabetes, the absolute net clinical benefit (MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, or bleeding leading to death or symptomatic bleeding into a critical organ) for rivaroxaban was “particularly favorable” in the diabetes group (2.7% fewer events in the diabetes group vs 1.0% fewer events in the nondiabetes group), they add.

Panelist at the ACC Featured Clinical Research session at which these results were presented, Jennifer Robinson, MD, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, asked Bhatt how clinicians were supposed to decide which of the many new agents now becoming available for patients with stable coronary artery disease to prescribe first.

“We often forget about rivaroxaban when we’re thinking about what to add next for our secondary prevention patients,” she said. “You also led the REDUCE-IT trial showing benefit of icosapent ethyl, icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl and there is also ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors. For your patients with coronary disease who are already on a high dose statin which one of these would you add next?”

“That is what physicians need to ponder all the time,” Bhatt replied. “And when a patient has several risk factors that are not well controlled, I guess it’s all important. I go through a checklist with my patients and try and figure what they’re not on that could further reduce their risk.”

“In the COMPASS trial there was an overall positive result with rivaroxaban in the whole population. And now we have shown that patients with diabetes had an even greater absolute risk reduction. That pattern has also been seen with other classes of agents including the statins, PCSK9 inhibitors, and icosapent ethyl,” Bhatt noted.

“In patients with diabetes, I will usually target whatever is standing out most at that time. If their glycemic control is completely out of whack, then that is what I would focus on first, and these days often with a SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. If the LDL was out of control, I would add ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor. If the triglycerides were high, I would add icosapent ethyl. If multiple things were out of control, I would usually focus on the number most out of kilter first and try not to forget about everything else.”

But Bhatt noted that the challenge with rivaroxaban is that there is no test of thrombosis risk that would prompt the physician to take action. “Basically, the doctor just has to remember to do it. In that regard I would consider whether patients are at low bleeding risk and are they still at high ischemic risk despite controlling other risk factors and, if so, then I would add this low dose of rivaroxaban.”

Another panel member, Sekar Kathiresan, MD, asked Bhatt whether he recommended using available scores to assess the bleeding/thrombosis risk/benefits of adding an antithrombotic.

Bhatt replied: “That’s a terrific question. I guess the right answer is that we should be doing that, but in reality I have to concede that I don’t use these scores. They have shown appropriate C statistics in populations, but they are not fantastic in individual patients.”

“I have to confess that I use the eyeball test. There is nothing as good at predicting future bleeding as past bleeding. So if a patient has had bleeding problems on aspirin alone I wouldn’t add rivaroxaban. But if a patient hasn’t bled before, especially if they had some experience of dual antiplatelet therapy, then they would be good candidates for a low vascular dose of rivaroxaban,” he said.

“It is not as easy as with other drugs as there is always a bleeding trade-off with an antithrombotic. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So patients need careful assessment when considering prescribing rivaroxaban and regular reassessment over time to check if they have had any bleeding,” he added.

The COMPASS study was funded by Bayer. Bhatt reports honoraria from Bayer via the Population Health Research Institute for his role on the COMPASS trial and other research funding from Bayer to the Brigham & Women’s Hospital.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 20-LB-20544-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

Circulation. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the COMPASS trial of patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease (PAD), the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice daily, provided a larger absolute benefit on cardiovascular endpoints — including a threefold greater reduction in all-cause mortality — in patients with diabetes compared with the overall population.

The results of the diabetes subset of the COMPASS trial were presented by Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, Massachusetts, on March 28 at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). They were also simultaneously published online in Circulation.

“Use of dual pathway inhibition with low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is particularly attractive in high-risk patients such as those with diabetes,” Bhatt concluded.

The COMPASS trial was first reported in 2017 and showed a new low dose of rivaroxaban (2.5-mg twice-daily; Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) plus aspirin, 100 mg once daily, was associated with a reduction in ischemic events and mortality and a superior net clinical benefit, balancing ischemic benefit with severe bleeding, compared with aspirin alone for secondary prevention in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.

But clinicians have been slow to prescribe rivaroxaban in this new and very large population.

“It’s been more than 2 years now since main COMPASS results, and there isn’t a sense that this therapy has really caught on,” chair of the current ACC session at which the diabetes subgroup results were presented, Hadley Wilson, MD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina, commented:

He asked Bhatt whether the diabetes subgroup may be “the tipping point that will make people aware of rivaroxaban and then that may trickle down to other patients.”

Bhatt said that he hoped that would be the case. “We as a steering committee of this trial could say the results were positive so rivaroxaban should now be used in everyone with stable coronary or peripheral arterial disease, but that is impractical and as you out point out it hasn’t happened,” he replied.

“In PAD/vascular medicine we have embraced this new therapy. In the broader cardiology world there are a lot of patients with stable coronary arterial disease at high ischemic risk who could take rivaroxaban, but its use is bound to be limited by it being a branded drug and the fact that there is a bleeding risk,” Bhatt explained.

“I think we need to identify patients with the highest ischemic risk and focus drugs such as these with a financial cost and a bleeding risk on those who most likely will derive the greatest absolute reduction in risk,” he said. “The PAD subgroup is one group where this is the case, and now we have shown the diabetes subgroup is another. And there is no incremental bleeding risk in this group over the whole population, so they get a much greater benefit without a greater risk. I hope this helps get rivaroxaban at the new lower dose used much more often.”

A total of 18,278 patients were randomly assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or aspirin alone in the COMPASS trial. Of these, 6922 had diabetes mellitus at baseline and 11,356 did not have diabetes.

Results from the current analysis show a consistent and similar relative risk reduction for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs placebo plus aspirin in patients both with and without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, with a hazard ratio of 0.74 for patients with diabetes and 0.77 for those without diabetes, the researchers report.

Because of the higher baseline risk in the diabetes subgroup, these patients had numerically larger absolute risk reductions with rivaroxaban than those without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint at 3 years (2.3% vs 1.4%) and for all-cause mortality (1.9% vs 0.6%).

These results translate into a number needed to treat (NNT) with rivaroxaban for 3 years to prevent one CV death, MI, or stroke of 44 for the diabetes group vs 73 for the nondiabetes group; the NNT to prevent one all-cause death was 54 for the diabetes group vs 167 for the nondiabetes group, the authors write.

Because the bleeding hazards were similar among patients with and without diabetes, the absolute net clinical benefit (MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, or bleeding leading to death or symptomatic bleeding into a critical organ) for rivaroxaban was “particularly favorable” in the diabetes group (2.7% fewer events in the diabetes group vs 1.0% fewer events in the nondiabetes group), they add.

Panelist at the ACC Featured Clinical Research session at which these results were presented, Jennifer Robinson, MD, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, asked Bhatt how clinicians were supposed to decide which of the many new agents now becoming available for patients with stable coronary artery disease to prescribe first.

“We often forget about rivaroxaban when we’re thinking about what to add next for our secondary prevention patients,” she said. “You also led the REDUCE-IT trial showing benefit of icosapent ethyl, icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl and there is also ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors. For your patients with coronary disease who are already on a high dose statin which one of these would you add next?”

“That is what physicians need to ponder all the time,” Bhatt replied. “And when a patient has several risk factors that are not well controlled, I guess it’s all important. I go through a checklist with my patients and try and figure what they’re not on that could further reduce their risk.”

“In the COMPASS trial there was an overall positive result with rivaroxaban in the whole population. And now we have shown that patients with diabetes had an even greater absolute risk reduction. That pattern has also been seen with other classes of agents including the statins, PCSK9 inhibitors, and icosapent ethyl,” Bhatt noted.

“In patients with diabetes, I will usually target whatever is standing out most at that time. If their glycemic control is completely out of whack, then that is what I would focus on first, and these days often with a SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. If the LDL was out of control, I would add ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor. If the triglycerides were high, I would add icosapent ethyl. If multiple things were out of control, I would usually focus on the number most out of kilter first and try not to forget about everything else.”

But Bhatt noted that the challenge with rivaroxaban is that there is no test of thrombosis risk that would prompt the physician to take action. “Basically, the doctor just has to remember to do it. In that regard I would consider whether patients are at low bleeding risk and are they still at high ischemic risk despite controlling other risk factors and, if so, then I would add this low dose of rivaroxaban.”

Another panel member, Sekar Kathiresan, MD, asked Bhatt whether he recommended using available scores to assess the bleeding/thrombosis risk/benefits of adding an antithrombotic.

Bhatt replied: “That’s a terrific question. I guess the right answer is that we should be doing that, but in reality I have to concede that I don’t use these scores. They have shown appropriate C statistics in populations, but they are not fantastic in individual patients.”

“I have to confess that I use the eyeball test. There is nothing as good at predicting future bleeding as past bleeding. So if a patient has had bleeding problems on aspirin alone I wouldn’t add rivaroxaban. But if a patient hasn’t bled before, especially if they had some experience of dual antiplatelet therapy, then they would be good candidates for a low vascular dose of rivaroxaban,” he said.

“It is not as easy as with other drugs as there is always a bleeding trade-off with an antithrombotic. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So patients need careful assessment when considering prescribing rivaroxaban and regular reassessment over time to check if they have had any bleeding,” he added.

The COMPASS study was funded by Bayer. Bhatt reports honoraria from Bayer via the Population Health Research Institute for his role on the COMPASS trial and other research funding from Bayer to the Brigham & Women’s Hospital.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 20-LB-20544-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

Circulation. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A combined antithrombotic regimen of rivaroxaban plus aspirin was safe and effective for reducing ischemic events in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease who had just undergone peripheral artery revascularization in VOYAGER PAD, a multicenter randomized trial with nearly 6,600 patients.

The study and its results were a groundbreaking advance for this patient population, who until now have had no evidence-based treatment available, Mark P. Bonaca, MD, said on March 28 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study design excluded a small percentage of patients (about 2%) because of their very high bleeding-risk history. Among the treated patients, in those who received a combination of 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg of aspirin daily, bleeding events were more common, compared with control patients who received aspirin alone. But the patients who received both drugs showed no excess of fatal bleeds or intracranial hemorrhages, and the rate of ischemic events prevented by rivaroxaban plus aspirin exceeded the excess rate of bleeds by three- to sixfold, depending on how bleeding episodes were defined, noted Dr. Bonaca, executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora.

“This was a much anticipated and important trial. Those of us who treat patients with lower-limb peripheral artery disease have not had much evidence on how to treat these patients, particularly those who have just undergone revascularization. This trial gives us the evidence,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “The bleeding risk [from adding rivaroxaban treatment] was substantially less than the benefit from preventing major adverse limb events and major adverse cardiovascular events,” producing a “favorable balance” of benefit, compared with risk, Dr. Creager said in an interview. “In the right patients, the benefit greatly outweighed the risk.”

“This was an incredible trial that will advance care,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor of medicine and director of Vascular Medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “The treatment was beneficial for patients across a range of symptom severity, from claudication to critical limb ischemia,” and the results expand the range of patients proven to benefit from the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination from the types of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in the COMPASS trial. That pivotal trial showed similar benefit from the dual-antithrombotic regimen, but in patients who had both coronary artery disease as well as atherosclerotic disease in at least one additional vascular bed, such as lower-limb arteries (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). In addition to “bringing acute limb ischemia to the cardiovascular community,” the results also identified a very useful time point in the clinical presentation of these patients for starting a combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin regimen: when patients are hospitalized for their revascularization procedure, said Dr. Beckman, a designated discussant for the report.

Among the 6,564 patients randomized in the study, about two-thirds underwent endovascular revascularization within 10 days before starting their study treatment, and the remaining third had undergone surgical revascularization. The study focused on patients “with symptomatic PAD but without known coronary artery disease,” noted Dr. Bonaca.

VOYAGER PAD trial

The VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular Or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) trial enrolled patients during 2015-2018 at 534 sites in 34 countries. The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes, and was reduced during a median follow-up of 28 months from 19.9% with aspirin alone to 17.3% on the combined regimen, a 2.6% absolute difference and a 15% relative risk reduction that was statistically significant, an endpoint primarily driven by a reduction in acute limb ischemia. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) major bleeds, which was 0.8% higher in the patients who received the anticoagulant, a 43% relative increase that just missed statistical significance. But that result demonstrated the small but important increased risk for bleeding events that the dual regimen produced in these patients, Dr. Bonaca said. Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052).

Dr. Bonaca cautioned that one limitation of his report on the primary outcome of VOYAGER PAD is that the results of an important subgroup analysis won’t be known until a second report during the ACC online sessions on March 29, which will examine the impact that treatment with the antiplatelet drug clopidogrel had on both the efficacy and safety outcomes. Half of the enrolled patients received clopidogrel at the discretion of their treating physicians; addition or exclusion of concurrent clopidogrel treatment was outside of the study’s design. “Is efficacy the same with or without clopidogrel, and what is the bleeding cost,” especially in patients who receive three antithrombotic drugs? “It will be very important to understand,” Dr. Bonaca said.

“Until now, we had no idea of what was the best antithrombotic strategy for patients after a successful peripheral vascular intervention.” VOYAGER PAD was “an unprecedented vascular study that addressed an unmet patient need,” commented Roxana Mehran, MD, a designated discussant for the study and professor of medicine and director of Interventional Cardiovascular Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Bonaca directs has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen, and also from Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Beckman has served as a data safety monitor for Bayer and for Novartis, and has been a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, JanOne and Sanofi. Dr. Mehran has received research funding from Bayer and has been a consultant to Janssen, and she has also received research funding or been a consultant to several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bonaca MP et al. ACC 20, Abstract 402-10.

A combined antithrombotic regimen of rivaroxaban plus aspirin was safe and effective for reducing ischemic events in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease who had just undergone peripheral artery revascularization in VOYAGER PAD, a multicenter randomized trial with nearly 6,600 patients.

The study and its results were a groundbreaking advance for this patient population, who until now have had no evidence-based treatment available, Mark P. Bonaca, MD, said on March 28 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study design excluded a small percentage of patients (about 2%) because of their very high bleeding-risk history. Among the treated patients, in those who received a combination of 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg of aspirin daily, bleeding events were more common, compared with control patients who received aspirin alone. But the patients who received both drugs showed no excess of fatal bleeds or intracranial hemorrhages, and the rate of ischemic events prevented by rivaroxaban plus aspirin exceeded the excess rate of bleeds by three- to sixfold, depending on how bleeding episodes were defined, noted Dr. Bonaca, executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora.

“This was a much anticipated and important trial. Those of us who treat patients with lower-limb peripheral artery disease have not had much evidence on how to treat these patients, particularly those who have just undergone revascularization. This trial gives us the evidence,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “The bleeding risk [from adding rivaroxaban treatment] was substantially less than the benefit from preventing major adverse limb events and major adverse cardiovascular events,” producing a “favorable balance” of benefit, compared with risk, Dr. Creager said in an interview. “In the right patients, the benefit greatly outweighed the risk.”

“This was an incredible trial that will advance care,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor of medicine and director of Vascular Medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “The treatment was beneficial for patients across a range of symptom severity, from claudication to critical limb ischemia,” and the results expand the range of patients proven to benefit from the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination from the types of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in the COMPASS trial. That pivotal trial showed similar benefit from the dual-antithrombotic regimen, but in patients who had both coronary artery disease as well as atherosclerotic disease in at least one additional vascular bed, such as lower-limb arteries (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). In addition to “bringing acute limb ischemia to the cardiovascular community,” the results also identified a very useful time point in the clinical presentation of these patients for starting a combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin regimen: when patients are hospitalized for their revascularization procedure, said Dr. Beckman, a designated discussant for the report.

Among the 6,564 patients randomized in the study, about two-thirds underwent endovascular revascularization within 10 days before starting their study treatment, and the remaining third had undergone surgical revascularization. The study focused on patients “with symptomatic PAD but without known coronary artery disease,” noted Dr. Bonaca.

VOYAGER PAD trial

The VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular Or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) trial enrolled patients during 2015-2018 at 534 sites in 34 countries. The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes, and was reduced during a median follow-up of 28 months from 19.9% with aspirin alone to 17.3% on the combined regimen, a 2.6% absolute difference and a 15% relative risk reduction that was statistically significant, an endpoint primarily driven by a reduction in acute limb ischemia. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) major bleeds, which was 0.8% higher in the patients who received the anticoagulant, a 43% relative increase that just missed statistical significance. But that result demonstrated the small but important increased risk for bleeding events that the dual regimen produced in these patients, Dr. Bonaca said. Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052).

Dr. Bonaca cautioned that one limitation of his report on the primary outcome of VOYAGER PAD is that the results of an important subgroup analysis won’t be known until a second report during the ACC online sessions on March 29, which will examine the impact that treatment with the antiplatelet drug clopidogrel had on both the efficacy and safety outcomes. Half of the enrolled patients received clopidogrel at the discretion of their treating physicians; addition or exclusion of concurrent clopidogrel treatment was outside of the study’s design. “Is efficacy the same with or without clopidogrel, and what is the bleeding cost,” especially in patients who receive three antithrombotic drugs? “It will be very important to understand,” Dr. Bonaca said.

“Until now, we had no idea of what was the best antithrombotic strategy for patients after a successful peripheral vascular intervention.” VOYAGER PAD was “an unprecedented vascular study that addressed an unmet patient need,” commented Roxana Mehran, MD, a designated discussant for the study and professor of medicine and director of Interventional Cardiovascular Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Bonaca directs has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen, and also from Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Beckman has served as a data safety monitor for Bayer and for Novartis, and has been a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, JanOne and Sanofi. Dr. Mehran has received research funding from Bayer and has been a consultant to Janssen, and she has also received research funding or been a consultant to several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bonaca MP et al. ACC 20, Abstract 402-10.

A combined antithrombotic regimen of rivaroxaban plus aspirin was safe and effective for reducing ischemic events in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease who had just undergone peripheral artery revascularization in VOYAGER PAD, a multicenter randomized trial with nearly 6,600 patients.

The study and its results were a groundbreaking advance for this patient population, who until now have had no evidence-based treatment available, Mark P. Bonaca, MD, said on March 28 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study design excluded a small percentage of patients (about 2%) because of their very high bleeding-risk history. Among the treated patients, in those who received a combination of 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg of aspirin daily, bleeding events were more common, compared with control patients who received aspirin alone. But the patients who received both drugs showed no excess of fatal bleeds or intracranial hemorrhages, and the rate of ischemic events prevented by rivaroxaban plus aspirin exceeded the excess rate of bleeds by three- to sixfold, depending on how bleeding episodes were defined, noted Dr. Bonaca, executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora.

“This was a much anticipated and important trial. Those of us who treat patients with lower-limb peripheral artery disease have not had much evidence on how to treat these patients, particularly those who have just undergone revascularization. This trial gives us the evidence,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “The bleeding risk [from adding rivaroxaban treatment] was substantially less than the benefit from preventing major adverse limb events and major adverse cardiovascular events,” producing a “favorable balance” of benefit, compared with risk, Dr. Creager said in an interview. “In the right patients, the benefit greatly outweighed the risk.”

“This was an incredible trial that will advance care,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor of medicine and director of Vascular Medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “The treatment was beneficial for patients across a range of symptom severity, from claudication to critical limb ischemia,” and the results expand the range of patients proven to benefit from the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination from the types of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in the COMPASS trial. That pivotal trial showed similar benefit from the dual-antithrombotic regimen, but in patients who had both coronary artery disease as well as atherosclerotic disease in at least one additional vascular bed, such as lower-limb arteries (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). In addition to “bringing acute limb ischemia to the cardiovascular community,” the results also identified a very useful time point in the clinical presentation of these patients for starting a combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin regimen: when patients are hospitalized for their revascularization procedure, said Dr. Beckman, a designated discussant for the report.

Among the 6,564 patients randomized in the study, about two-thirds underwent endovascular revascularization within 10 days before starting their study treatment, and the remaining third had undergone surgical revascularization. The study focused on patients “with symptomatic PAD but without known coronary artery disease,” noted Dr. Bonaca.

VOYAGER PAD trial

The VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular Or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) trial enrolled patients during 2015-2018 at 534 sites in 34 countries. The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes, and was reduced during a median follow-up of 28 months from 19.9% with aspirin alone to 17.3% on the combined regimen, a 2.6% absolute difference and a 15% relative risk reduction that was statistically significant, an endpoint primarily driven by a reduction in acute limb ischemia. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) major bleeds, which was 0.8% higher in the patients who received the anticoagulant, a 43% relative increase that just missed statistical significance. But that result demonstrated the small but important increased risk for bleeding events that the dual regimen produced in these patients, Dr. Bonaca said. Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052).

Dr. Bonaca cautioned that one limitation of his report on the primary outcome of VOYAGER PAD is that the results of an important subgroup analysis won’t be known until a second report during the ACC online sessions on March 29, which will examine the impact that treatment with the antiplatelet drug clopidogrel had on both the efficacy and safety outcomes. Half of the enrolled patients received clopidogrel at the discretion of their treating physicians; addition or exclusion of concurrent clopidogrel treatment was outside of the study’s design. “Is efficacy the same with or without clopidogrel, and what is the bleeding cost,” especially in patients who receive three antithrombotic drugs? “It will be very important to understand,” Dr. Bonaca said.

“Until now, we had no idea of what was the best antithrombotic strategy for patients after a successful peripheral vascular intervention.” VOYAGER PAD was “an unprecedented vascular study that addressed an unmet patient need,” commented Roxana Mehran, MD, a designated discussant for the study and professor of medicine and director of Interventional Cardiovascular Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Bonaca directs has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen, and also from Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Beckman has served as a data safety monitor for Bayer and for Novartis, and has been a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, JanOne and Sanofi. Dr. Mehran has received research funding from Bayer and has been a consultant to Janssen, and she has also received research funding or been a consultant to several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bonaca MP et al. ACC 20, Abstract 402-10.

The controversy regarding the safety of treating peripheral artery disease (PAD) with paclitaxel-coated devices has only deepened in the new year, with two recent studies suggesting opposite safety findings.
 

The debate began with a 2018 meta-analysis showing a late mortality signal associated with paclitaxel drug-coated balloons (DCBs) that sent reverberations through the interventional cardiology community (J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Dec 18;7[24]:e011245).

Now, in a new meta-analysis involving eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and more than 1,400 patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI), the same researchers found significantly more early amputations and deaths in those treated with DCB below the knee, compared with conventional balloon angioplasty.

“The findings of our latest report add to previous evidence underpinning major safety concerns around use of paclitaxel in lower limb angioplasties – increased long-term patient mortality in cases of intermittent claudication,” lead author Konstantinos Katsanos MD, MSc, PhD, Patras University Hospital, Greece, said in an interview.

By contrast, a retrospective study of insurance claims in Germany showed no heightened mortality with paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents, compared with uncoated devices, in close to 38,000 patients with PAD.

On the contrary, use of paclitaxel-coated devices was associated with higher long-term survival, better amputation-free survival (AFS), and lower rates of major cardiovascular events in the treatment of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

These findings “emphasize the difference between population-based evidence and randomized trials,” lead author Christian-Alexander Behrendt, MD, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, said in an interview.

Downstream “showers”

In the new meta-analysis led by Dr. Katsanos, published online Jan. 15, the 1,420 patients were treated with five different DCBs and 97% had CLI (J Vasc Intervent Radiol 2020 Feb;31[2]:202-12).

In up to 1-year follow-up, the paclitaxel DCB group had fewer target lesion revascularizations (TLR) than those of the uncoated device group (11.8% vs. 25.6%; risk ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.81) but worse AFS (13.7% vs. 9.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12-2.07).

The latter finding was driven by nonsignificant increased risks for all-cause death (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.94-2.07) and major amputations (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.92-2.90).

In dose-subgroup analyses, AFS was significantly worse in cases with high-dose (3.0-3.5 mcg/mm²) devices, but not in the single trial with a low-dose DCB (2.0 mcg/mm²).

“Considering the well-described downstream ‘showers’ of paclitaxel particles with current drug-coated balloons, we hypothesize that nontarget paclitaxel embolization is a plausible mechanism for distal foot and systemic toxicity,” Dr. Katsanos said.

Short time frame

Eric Secemsky, MD, of Harvard Medical School, and director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, suggested in an interview that this theorized mechanism of harm in below-the-knee procedures could potentially shed light on a similar mechanism at play in above-the-knee procedures.

“We didn’t understand why people could potentially be dying in above-the-knee [procedures], and the suggestion here is that these devices might perhaps be causing particular embolization or maybe delayed wound healing,” Dr. Secemsky speculated.

However, “I don’t know that this is true, so I am cautious to say this is true,” he emphasized.

Dr. Secemsky said a strength of the Katsanos analysis is that the RCTs included more than 1,000 patients, but noted that it is hard to vet the quality and rigor of the data, as some of the studies have not yet been published. He also noted that paclitaxel-coated devices are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States for below-the-knee procedures.

Moreover, he continued, “two studies were driving the signal of harm: the IN.PACT DEEP, which included an iteration of their DCB that is no longer being tested; and the unpublished SINGA-PACLI trial. Those studies contributed most of the adverse events seen in this meta-analysis.”

In addition, the trials had different lengths of follow-up (6-12 months), he said. “Thus, the five trials with data available to 12 months are driving the 1-year findings, whereas three RCTs, including the primary RCT showing safety [Lutonix-BTK trial], only contribute data to 6 months.”

For this reason, “we are not too excited about this meta-analysis as of now, [because] all it tells us is that we need more data to support the safety of drug-coated devices in this population,” Dr. Secemsky said.

Dr. Katsanos explained that, “to address the differences in follow-up period and number of cases lost to follow-up, the primary endpoint was calculated on the log-hazard scale and expressed as a hazard ratio, as recommended for time-to-event outcomes.”

He highlighted that a short-term time frame of 6 months to 1 year was chosen “because it is clinically relevant to limb-threatening CLI.”

Sensitivity tests also “showed consistent direction and magnitude of the summary treatment effects in case of both AFS and freedom from TLR,” Dr. Katsanos emphasized.

Lower mortality, fewer amputations

The second study, published online Jan. 8, drew on health insurance claims in the German BARMER database to analyze 37,914 patients (mean age, 73.3 years, 49% female) and 21,546 propensity-score-matched patients with symptomatic CLTI or intermittent claudication (IC) with an index revascularization during 2010-2018 (Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.12.034).

Patients were first stratified by CLTI or IC, and then by balloon vs. stent use. Paclitaxel-coated devices were then compared with uncoated devices within each stratum. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the end of follow-up.

From 2010 to 2018, the annual use of paclitaxel-coated devices increased dramatically from 3% to 39% in the CLTI group and from 4% to 48% in the IC group (P less than .001 for both).

A total of 2,454 deaths occurred within 5 years of follow-up (median, 2.7 years; longest, 8 years).

A Cox proportional hazards model (based on propensity-score-matched cohorts at 5 years) showed that, compared with uncoated devices, use of paclitaxel-coated devices in the CLTI group was associated with several improvements:

• Overall survival: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90.
• Amputation-free survival: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91.
• Major cardiovascular events: HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88.

In the IC group, mortality was significantly better with DCB (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99) or a combination of DCB and drug-eluting stents (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) than with uncoated devices, but similar for DES alone (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08).

No benefit was found for paclitaxel-coated devices in the IC group for AFS (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.82-1.00) or major cardiovascular events (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.00).

The authors acknowledge that “unmeasured confounding” may partly explain the results. It may be that patients revascularized with DCB or DES “are more likely to be treated in highly specialized trial centers with clear follow-up protocol.”

Moreover, these patients may have received “the best treatment,” including statin therapy, added Dr. Behrendt.

More evidence needed

Dr. Secemsky, who was not involved with either study, said the German investigators “did a wonderful job with this analysis in a large population of several thousand patients, showing nicely that after accounting for differences in comorbidities, the patients had no evidence of harm with [paclitaxel-coated] devices through 5 years.”

However, he cautioned, median follow-up time was just over 2 years. “Although the investigators had data all the way out to 5 years, over time, the number of patients contributing data became smaller, which results in more uncertainty with these longer-term findings,” he said. “As such, we still need to look at additional long-term data in this patient population to confirm the safety of these devices.”

At present, the “major consideration we want to address is whether it’s safe to use these devices, and we’re undertaking these analyses to examine safety, not to see if they improve mortality,” although the present study “has a suggestion of mortality benefit,” Dr. Secemsky said.

Dr. Katsanos added that paclitaxel-coated balloons “remain under investigation for below-knee arteries and critical limb ischemia,” with “a few randomized controlled trials on the way.”

“We need definitive evidence from high-quality multicenter controlled trials that these devices may improve wound healing and limb salvage without any systemic mortality risk,” he said.

Dr. Katsanos receives personal fees from Boston Scientific and Philips Healthcare. The study by Dr. Behrendt was part of the IDOMENEO project funded by the German Joint Federal Committee. Dr. Behrendt reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Secemsky reports institutional grants from Cook Medical, BD Bard, Medtronic, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Boston Scientific, and reports consultancy for Cook Medical, BD Bard, and Medtronic.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The controversy regarding the safety of treating peripheral artery disease (PAD) with paclitaxel-coated devices has only deepened in the new year, with two recent studies suggesting opposite safety findings.
 

The debate began with a 2018 meta-analysis showing a late mortality signal associated with paclitaxel drug-coated balloons (DCBs) that sent reverberations through the interventional cardiology community (J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Dec 18;7[24]:e011245).

Now, in a new meta-analysis involving eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and more than 1,400 patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI), the same researchers found significantly more early amputations and deaths in those treated with DCB below the knee, compared with conventional balloon angioplasty.

“The findings of our latest report add to previous evidence underpinning major safety concerns around use of paclitaxel in lower limb angioplasties – increased long-term patient mortality in cases of intermittent claudication,” lead author Konstantinos Katsanos MD, MSc, PhD, Patras University Hospital, Greece, said in an interview.

By contrast, a retrospective study of insurance claims in Germany showed no heightened mortality with paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents, compared with uncoated devices, in close to 38,000 patients with PAD.

On the contrary, use of paclitaxel-coated devices was associated with higher long-term survival, better amputation-free survival (AFS), and lower rates of major cardiovascular events in the treatment of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

These findings “emphasize the difference between population-based evidence and randomized trials,” lead author Christian-Alexander Behrendt, MD, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, said in an interview.

Downstream “showers”

In the new meta-analysis led by Dr. Katsanos, published online Jan. 15, the 1,420 patients were treated with five different DCBs and 97% had CLI (J Vasc Intervent Radiol 2020 Feb;31[2]:202-12).

In up to 1-year follow-up, the paclitaxel DCB group had fewer target lesion revascularizations (TLR) than those of the uncoated device group (11.8% vs. 25.6%; risk ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.81) but worse AFS (13.7% vs. 9.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12-2.07).

The latter finding was driven by nonsignificant increased risks for all-cause death (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.94-2.07) and major amputations (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.92-2.90).

In dose-subgroup analyses, AFS was significantly worse in cases with high-dose (3.0-3.5 mcg/mm²) devices, but not in the single trial with a low-dose DCB (2.0 mcg/mm²).

“Considering the well-described downstream ‘showers’ of paclitaxel particles with current drug-coated balloons, we hypothesize that nontarget paclitaxel embolization is a plausible mechanism for distal foot and systemic toxicity,” Dr. Katsanos said.

Short time frame

Eric Secemsky, MD, of Harvard Medical School, and director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, suggested in an interview that this theorized mechanism of harm in below-the-knee procedures could potentially shed light on a similar mechanism at play in above-the-knee procedures.

“We didn’t understand why people could potentially be dying in above-the-knee [procedures], and the suggestion here is that these devices might perhaps be causing particular embolization or maybe delayed wound healing,” Dr. Secemsky speculated.

However, “I don’t know that this is true, so I am cautious to say this is true,” he emphasized.

Dr. Secemsky said a strength of the Katsanos analysis is that the RCTs included more than 1,000 patients, but noted that it is hard to vet the quality and rigor of the data, as some of the studies have not yet been published. He also noted that paclitaxel-coated devices are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States for below-the-knee procedures.

Moreover, he continued, “two studies were driving the signal of harm: the IN.PACT DEEP, which included an iteration of their DCB that is no longer being tested; and the unpublished SINGA-PACLI trial. Those studies contributed most of the adverse events seen in this meta-analysis.”

In addition, the trials had different lengths of follow-up (6-12 months), he said. “Thus, the five trials with data available to 12 months are driving the 1-year findings, whereas three RCTs, including the primary RCT showing safety [Lutonix-BTK trial], only contribute data to 6 months.”

For this reason, “we are not too excited about this meta-analysis as of now, [because] all it tells us is that we need more data to support the safety of drug-coated devices in this population,” Dr. Secemsky said.

Dr. Katsanos explained that, “to address the differences in follow-up period and number of cases lost to follow-up, the primary endpoint was calculated on the log-hazard scale and expressed as a hazard ratio, as recommended for time-to-event outcomes.”

He highlighted that a short-term time frame of 6 months to 1 year was chosen “because it is clinically relevant to limb-threatening CLI.”

Sensitivity tests also “showed consistent direction and magnitude of the summary treatment effects in case of both AFS and freedom from TLR,” Dr. Katsanos emphasized.

Lower mortality, fewer amputations

The second study, published online Jan. 8, drew on health insurance claims in the German BARMER database to analyze 37,914 patients (mean age, 73.3 years, 49% female) and 21,546 propensity-score-matched patients with symptomatic CLTI or intermittent claudication (IC) with an index revascularization during 2010-2018 (Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.12.034).

Patients were first stratified by CLTI or IC, and then by balloon vs. stent use. Paclitaxel-coated devices were then compared with uncoated devices within each stratum. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the end of follow-up.

From 2010 to 2018, the annual use of paclitaxel-coated devices increased dramatically from 3% to 39% in the CLTI group and from 4% to 48% in the IC group (P less than .001 for both).

A total of 2,454 deaths occurred within 5 years of follow-up (median, 2.7 years; longest, 8 years).

A Cox proportional hazards model (based on propensity-score-matched cohorts at 5 years) showed that, compared with uncoated devices, use of paclitaxel-coated devices in the CLTI group was associated with several improvements:

• Overall survival: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90.
• Amputation-free survival: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91.
• Major cardiovascular events: HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88.

In the IC group, mortality was significantly better with DCB (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99) or a combination of DCB and drug-eluting stents (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) than with uncoated devices, but similar for DES alone (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08).

No benefit was found for paclitaxel-coated devices in the IC group for AFS (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.82-1.00) or major cardiovascular events (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.00).

The authors acknowledge that “unmeasured confounding” may partly explain the results. It may be that patients revascularized with DCB or DES “are more likely to be treated in highly specialized trial centers with clear follow-up protocol.”

Moreover, these patients may have received “the best treatment,” including statin therapy, added Dr. Behrendt.

More evidence needed

Dr. Secemsky, who was not involved with either study, said the German investigators “did a wonderful job with this analysis in a large population of several thousand patients, showing nicely that after accounting for differences in comorbidities, the patients had no evidence of harm with [paclitaxel-coated] devices through 5 years.”

However, he cautioned, median follow-up time was just over 2 years. “Although the investigators had data all the way out to 5 years, over time, the number of patients contributing data became smaller, which results in more uncertainty with these longer-term findings,” he said. “As such, we still need to look at additional long-term data in this patient population to confirm the safety of these devices.”

At present, the “major consideration we want to address is whether it’s safe to use these devices, and we’re undertaking these analyses to examine safety, not to see if they improve mortality,” although the present study “has a suggestion of mortality benefit,” Dr. Secemsky said.

Dr. Katsanos added that paclitaxel-coated balloons “remain under investigation for below-knee arteries and critical limb ischemia,” with “a few randomized controlled trials on the way.”

“We need definitive evidence from high-quality multicenter controlled trials that these devices may improve wound healing and limb salvage without any systemic mortality risk,” he said.

Dr. Katsanos receives personal fees from Boston Scientific and Philips Healthcare. The study by Dr. Behrendt was part of the IDOMENEO project funded by the German Joint Federal Committee. Dr. Behrendt reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Secemsky reports institutional grants from Cook Medical, BD Bard, Medtronic, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Boston Scientific, and reports consultancy for Cook Medical, BD Bard, and Medtronic.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The controversy regarding the safety of treating peripheral artery disease (PAD) with paclitaxel-coated devices has only deepened in the new year, with two recent studies suggesting opposite safety findings.
 

The debate began with a 2018 meta-analysis showing a late mortality signal associated with paclitaxel drug-coated balloons (DCBs) that sent reverberations through the interventional cardiology community (J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Dec 18;7[24]:e011245).

Now, in a new meta-analysis involving eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and more than 1,400 patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI), the same researchers found significantly more early amputations and deaths in those treated with DCB below the knee, compared with conventional balloon angioplasty.

“The findings of our latest report add to previous evidence underpinning major safety concerns around use of paclitaxel in lower limb angioplasties – increased long-term patient mortality in cases of intermittent claudication,” lead author Konstantinos Katsanos MD, MSc, PhD, Patras University Hospital, Greece, said in an interview.

By contrast, a retrospective study of insurance claims in Germany showed no heightened mortality with paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents, compared with uncoated devices, in close to 38,000 patients with PAD.

On the contrary, use of paclitaxel-coated devices was associated with higher long-term survival, better amputation-free survival (AFS), and lower rates of major cardiovascular events in the treatment of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

These findings “emphasize the difference between population-based evidence and randomized trials,” lead author Christian-Alexander Behrendt, MD, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, said in an interview.

Downstream “showers”

In the new meta-analysis led by Dr. Katsanos, published online Jan. 15, the 1,420 patients were treated with five different DCBs and 97% had CLI (J Vasc Intervent Radiol 2020 Feb;31[2]:202-12).

In up to 1-year follow-up, the paclitaxel DCB group had fewer target lesion revascularizations (TLR) than those of the uncoated device group (11.8% vs. 25.6%; risk ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.81) but worse AFS (13.7% vs. 9.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12-2.07).

The latter finding was driven by nonsignificant increased risks for all-cause death (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.94-2.07) and major amputations (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.92-2.90).

In dose-subgroup analyses, AFS was significantly worse in cases with high-dose (3.0-3.5 mcg/mm²) devices, but not in the single trial with a low-dose DCB (2.0 mcg/mm²).

“Considering the well-described downstream ‘showers’ of paclitaxel particles with current drug-coated balloons, we hypothesize that nontarget paclitaxel embolization is a plausible mechanism for distal foot and systemic toxicity,” Dr. Katsanos said.

Short time frame

Eric Secemsky, MD, of Harvard Medical School, and director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, suggested in an interview that this theorized mechanism of harm in below-the-knee procedures could potentially shed light on a similar mechanism at play in above-the-knee procedures.

“We didn’t understand why people could potentially be dying in above-the-knee [procedures], and the suggestion here is that these devices might perhaps be causing particular embolization or maybe delayed wound healing,” Dr. Secemsky speculated.

However, “I don’t know that this is true, so I am cautious to say this is true,” he emphasized.

Dr. Secemsky said a strength of the Katsanos analysis is that the RCTs included more than 1,000 patients, but noted that it is hard to vet the quality and rigor of the data, as some of the studies have not yet been published. He also noted that paclitaxel-coated devices are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States for below-the-knee procedures.

Moreover, he continued, “two studies were driving the signal of harm: the IN.PACT DEEP, which included an iteration of their DCB that is no longer being tested; and the unpublished SINGA-PACLI trial. Those studies contributed most of the adverse events seen in this meta-analysis.”

In addition, the trials had different lengths of follow-up (6-12 months), he said. “Thus, the five trials with data available to 12 months are driving the 1-year findings, whereas three RCTs, including the primary RCT showing safety [Lutonix-BTK trial], only contribute data to 6 months.”

For this reason, “we are not too excited about this meta-analysis as of now, [because] all it tells us is that we need more data to support the safety of drug-coated devices in this population,” Dr. Secemsky said.

Dr. Katsanos explained that, “to address the differences in follow-up period and number of cases lost to follow-up, the primary endpoint was calculated on the log-hazard scale and expressed as a hazard ratio, as recommended for time-to-event outcomes.”

He highlighted that a short-term time frame of 6 months to 1 year was chosen “because it is clinically relevant to limb-threatening CLI.”

Sensitivity tests also “showed consistent direction and magnitude of the summary treatment effects in case of both AFS and freedom from TLR,” Dr. Katsanos emphasized.

Lower mortality, fewer amputations

The second study, published online Jan. 8, drew on health insurance claims in the German BARMER database to analyze 37,914 patients (mean age, 73.3 years, 49% female) and 21,546 propensity-score-matched patients with symptomatic CLTI or intermittent claudication (IC) with an index revascularization during 2010-2018 (Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.12.034).

Patients were first stratified by CLTI or IC, and then by balloon vs. stent use. Paclitaxel-coated devices were then compared with uncoated devices within each stratum. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the end of follow-up.

From 2010 to 2018, the annual use of paclitaxel-coated devices increased dramatically from 3% to 39% in the CLTI group and from 4% to 48% in the IC group (P less than .001 for both).

A total of 2,454 deaths occurred within 5 years of follow-up (median, 2.7 years; longest, 8 years).

A Cox proportional hazards model (based on propensity-score-matched cohorts at 5 years) showed that, compared with uncoated devices, use of paclitaxel-coated devices in the CLTI group was associated with several improvements:

• Overall survival: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90.
• Amputation-free survival: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91.
• Major cardiovascular events: HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88.

In the IC group, mortality was significantly better with DCB (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99) or a combination of DCB and drug-eluting stents (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) than with uncoated devices, but similar for DES alone (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08).

No benefit was found for paclitaxel-coated devices in the IC group for AFS (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.82-1.00) or major cardiovascular events (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.00).

The authors acknowledge that “unmeasured confounding” may partly explain the results. It may be that patients revascularized with DCB or DES “are more likely to be treated in highly specialized trial centers with clear follow-up protocol.”

Moreover, these patients may have received “the best treatment,” including statin therapy, added Dr. Behrendt.

More evidence needed

Dr. Secemsky, who was not involved with either study, said the German investigators “did a wonderful job with this analysis in a large population of several thousand patients, showing nicely that after accounting for differences in comorbidities, the patients had no evidence of harm with [paclitaxel-coated] devices through 5 years.”

However, he cautioned, median follow-up time was just over 2 years. “Although the investigators had data all the way out to 5 years, over time, the number of patients contributing data became smaller, which results in more uncertainty with these longer-term findings,” he said. “As such, we still need to look at additional long-term data in this patient population to confirm the safety of these devices.”

At present, the “major consideration we want to address is whether it’s safe to use these devices, and we’re undertaking these analyses to examine safety, not to see if they improve mortality,” although the present study “has a suggestion of mortality benefit,” Dr. Secemsky said.

Dr. Katsanos added that paclitaxel-coated balloons “remain under investigation for below-knee arteries and critical limb ischemia,” with “a few randomized controlled trials on the way.”

“We need definitive evidence from high-quality multicenter controlled trials that these devices may improve wound healing and limb salvage without any systemic mortality risk,” he said.

Dr. Katsanos receives personal fees from Boston Scientific and Philips Healthcare. The study by Dr. Behrendt was part of the IDOMENEO project funded by the German Joint Federal Committee. Dr. Behrendt reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Secemsky reports institutional grants from Cook Medical, BD Bard, Medtronic, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Boston Scientific, and reports consultancy for Cook Medical, BD Bard, and Medtronic.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.