Stroke

TOPLINE:

Risk for dementia is nearly 80% higher in stroke survivors than in those without stroke, a new study reveals. The data suggest risk declines within 1 year after stroke but remains elevated for up to 20 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-wide analysis of over 15 million people in Canada between 2002 and 2022. The study focused on adults hospitalized for ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
• Of 175,980 stroke survivors, 99% were matched 1:1 to residents without stroke on the basis of age, sex, rural residence, neighborhood deprivation, and vascular comorbidities. In addition, 90% of patients were matched to those with AMI.
• Incident dementia diagnoses were tracked starting 90 days after stroke until death, emigration, or the end of the study, using a validated algorithm based on hospitalization for dementia, prescriptions for cholinesterase inhibitors, or physician claims within 2 years.
• The mean follow-up duration was 5.6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among stroke survivors, 19% were diagnosed with dementia vs 12.5% in the reference population. The dementia rate per 100 person-years was higher among stroke survivors than in the reference population over the entire follow-up period (3.34 vs 1.89).
• Over the entire study period, dementia was 76% more likely among stroke patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.73-1.79) and 82% more likely in the AMI cohort (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.79-1.85) than in the reference population.
• Time-varying analysis revealed that dementia risk was highest within the first year after stroke, with a > 2.5-fold increase at 6 months (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.42-2.59), which decreased to a 1.5-fold increase at 5 years (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.48-1.56) but remained elevated compared with the reference population even 20 years after the index stroke.
• Recurrent stroke was associated with an approximately threefold increased risk for dementia (single recurrent stroke adjusted HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.54-2.74; multiple recurrent strokes adjusted HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 2.81-3.33).

IN PRACTICE:

“While much research has been focused on reducing the risk of a second stroke, our findings make it clear that more research also is needed on developing interventions to help prevent dementia after stroke,” lead author Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a press release.

“There is a need to accelerate the implementation of promising interventions or multipronged approaches into large randomized controlled trials to lower the risk of dementia,” the investigators wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was published online on December 4 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included reliance on administrative coding without imaging data, potential underestimation of mild dementia, and lack of granular information on stroke severity, disability, and prestroke cognitive decline. While adjustments were made for healthcare contact and secondary prevention medications, residual biases may have persisted.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the Canada Brain Research Fund, Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Canadian Stroke Consortium. Two authors hold awards and positions from national organizations and academic institutions in Canada. Additional details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Risk for dementia is nearly 80% higher in stroke survivors than in those without stroke, a new study reveals. The data suggest risk declines within 1 year after stroke but remains elevated for up to 20 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-wide analysis of over 15 million people in Canada between 2002 and 2022. The study focused on adults hospitalized for ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
• Of 175,980 stroke survivors, 99% were matched 1:1 to residents without stroke on the basis of age, sex, rural residence, neighborhood deprivation, and vascular comorbidities. In addition, 90% of patients were matched to those with AMI.
• Incident dementia diagnoses were tracked starting 90 days after stroke until death, emigration, or the end of the study, using a validated algorithm based on hospitalization for dementia, prescriptions for cholinesterase inhibitors, or physician claims within 2 years.
• The mean follow-up duration was 5.6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among stroke survivors, 19% were diagnosed with dementia vs 12.5% in the reference population. The dementia rate per 100 person-years was higher among stroke survivors than in the reference population over the entire follow-up period (3.34 vs 1.89).
• Over the entire study period, dementia was 76% more likely among stroke patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.73-1.79) and 82% more likely in the AMI cohort (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.79-1.85) than in the reference population.
• Time-varying analysis revealed that dementia risk was highest within the first year after stroke, with a > 2.5-fold increase at 6 months (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.42-2.59), which decreased to a 1.5-fold increase at 5 years (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.48-1.56) but remained elevated compared with the reference population even 20 years after the index stroke.
• Recurrent stroke was associated with an approximately threefold increased risk for dementia (single recurrent stroke adjusted HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.54-2.74; multiple recurrent strokes adjusted HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 2.81-3.33).

IN PRACTICE:

“While much research has been focused on reducing the risk of a second stroke, our findings make it clear that more research also is needed on developing interventions to help prevent dementia after stroke,” lead author Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a press release.

“There is a need to accelerate the implementation of promising interventions or multipronged approaches into large randomized controlled trials to lower the risk of dementia,” the investigators wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was published online on December 4 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included reliance on administrative coding without imaging data, potential underestimation of mild dementia, and lack of granular information on stroke severity, disability, and prestroke cognitive decline. While adjustments were made for healthcare contact and secondary prevention medications, residual biases may have persisted.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the Canada Brain Research Fund, Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Canadian Stroke Consortium. Two authors hold awards and positions from national organizations and academic institutions in Canada. Additional details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Risk for dementia is nearly 80% higher in stroke survivors than in those without stroke, a new study reveals. The data suggest risk declines within 1 year after stroke but remains elevated for up to 20 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-wide analysis of over 15 million people in Canada between 2002 and 2022. The study focused on adults hospitalized for ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
• Of 175,980 stroke survivors, 99% were matched 1:1 to residents without stroke on the basis of age, sex, rural residence, neighborhood deprivation, and vascular comorbidities. In addition, 90% of patients were matched to those with AMI.
• Incident dementia diagnoses were tracked starting 90 days after stroke until death, emigration, or the end of the study, using a validated algorithm based on hospitalization for dementia, prescriptions for cholinesterase inhibitors, or physician claims within 2 years.
• The mean follow-up duration was 5.6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among stroke survivors, 19% were diagnosed with dementia vs 12.5% in the reference population. The dementia rate per 100 person-years was higher among stroke survivors than in the reference population over the entire follow-up period (3.34 vs 1.89).
• Over the entire study period, dementia was 76% more likely among stroke patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.73-1.79) and 82% more likely in the AMI cohort (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.79-1.85) than in the reference population.
• Time-varying analysis revealed that dementia risk was highest within the first year after stroke, with a > 2.5-fold increase at 6 months (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.42-2.59), which decreased to a 1.5-fold increase at 5 years (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.48-1.56) but remained elevated compared with the reference population even 20 years after the index stroke.
• Recurrent stroke was associated with an approximately threefold increased risk for dementia (single recurrent stroke adjusted HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.54-2.74; multiple recurrent strokes adjusted HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 2.81-3.33).

IN PRACTICE:

“While much research has been focused on reducing the risk of a second stroke, our findings make it clear that more research also is needed on developing interventions to help prevent dementia after stroke,” lead author Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a press release.

“There is a need to accelerate the implementation of promising interventions or multipronged approaches into large randomized controlled trials to lower the risk of dementia,” the investigators wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was published online on December 4 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included reliance on administrative coding without imaging data, potential underestimation of mild dementia, and lack of granular information on stroke severity, disability, and prestroke cognitive decline. While adjustments were made for healthcare contact and secondary prevention medications, residual biases may have persisted.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the Canada Brain Research Fund, Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Canadian Stroke Consortium. Two authors hold awards and positions from national organizations and academic institutions in Canada. Additional details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The newer biologics — interleukin (IL)–17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors — demonstrate comparable cardiovascular safety profiles to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In a retrospective cohort study, researchers conducted an emulated target trial analysis using data of 32,098 biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or PsA who were treated with one of the newer biologics (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab) from the TriNetX Research Network between 2014 and 2022.
• Patients received TNF inhibitors (n = 20,314), IL-17 inhibitors (n = 5073), IL-12/23 inhibitors (n = 3573), or IL-23 inhibitors (n = 3138).
• A propensity-matched analysis compared each class of newer biologics with TNF inhibitors, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medication use.
• The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; myocardial infarction and stroke) or venous thromboembolic events (VTE).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with patients who received TNF inhibitors, the risk for MACE was not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.52), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.78), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.61-1.38)
• The VTE risk was also not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (IRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.63-2.08), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.73-3.19), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.64-3.25) compared with those who received TNF inhibitors.
• Subgroup analyses for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis alone confirmed consistent findings.
• Patients with preexisting hyperlipidemia and diabetes mellitus showed lower risks for MACE and VTE with newer biologics compared with TNF inhibitors. 

IN PRACTICE:

“No significant MACE and VTE risk differences were detected in patients with psoriasis or PsA between those receiving IL-17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors and those with TNF inhibitors,” the authors concluded. These findings, they added “can be considered by physicians and patients when making treatment decisions” and also provide “evidence for future pharmacovigilance studies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tai-Li Chen, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online on December 27, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included potential residual confounding factors, lack of information on disease severity, and inclusion of predominantly White individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The newer biologics — interleukin (IL)–17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors — demonstrate comparable cardiovascular safety profiles to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In a retrospective cohort study, researchers conducted an emulated target trial analysis using data of 32,098 biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or PsA who were treated with one of the newer biologics (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab) from the TriNetX Research Network between 2014 and 2022.
• Patients received TNF inhibitors (n = 20,314), IL-17 inhibitors (n = 5073), IL-12/23 inhibitors (n = 3573), or IL-23 inhibitors (n = 3138).
• A propensity-matched analysis compared each class of newer biologics with TNF inhibitors, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medication use.
• The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; myocardial infarction and stroke) or venous thromboembolic events (VTE).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with patients who received TNF inhibitors, the risk for MACE was not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.52), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.78), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.61-1.38)
• The VTE risk was also not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (IRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.63-2.08), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.73-3.19), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.64-3.25) compared with those who received TNF inhibitors.
• Subgroup analyses for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis alone confirmed consistent findings.
• Patients with preexisting hyperlipidemia and diabetes mellitus showed lower risks for MACE and VTE with newer biologics compared with TNF inhibitors. 

IN PRACTICE:

“No significant MACE and VTE risk differences were detected in patients with psoriasis or PsA between those receiving IL-17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors and those with TNF inhibitors,” the authors concluded. These findings, they added “can be considered by physicians and patients when making treatment decisions” and also provide “evidence for future pharmacovigilance studies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tai-Li Chen, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online on December 27, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included potential residual confounding factors, lack of information on disease severity, and inclusion of predominantly White individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The newer biologics — interleukin (IL)–17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors — demonstrate comparable cardiovascular safety profiles to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In a retrospective cohort study, researchers conducted an emulated target trial analysis using data of 32,098 biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or PsA who were treated with one of the newer biologics (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab) from the TriNetX Research Network between 2014 and 2022.
• Patients received TNF inhibitors (n = 20,314), IL-17 inhibitors (n = 5073), IL-12/23 inhibitors (n = 3573), or IL-23 inhibitors (n = 3138).
• A propensity-matched analysis compared each class of newer biologics with TNF inhibitors, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medication use.
• The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; myocardial infarction and stroke) or venous thromboembolic events (VTE).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with patients who received TNF inhibitors, the risk for MACE was not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.52), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.78), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.61-1.38)
• The VTE risk was also not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (IRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.63-2.08), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.73-3.19), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.64-3.25) compared with those who received TNF inhibitors.
• Subgroup analyses for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis alone confirmed consistent findings.
• Patients with preexisting hyperlipidemia and diabetes mellitus showed lower risks for MACE and VTE with newer biologics compared with TNF inhibitors. 

IN PRACTICE:

“No significant MACE and VTE risk differences were detected in patients with psoriasis or PsA between those receiving IL-17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors and those with TNF inhibitors,” the authors concluded. These findings, they added “can be considered by physicians and patients when making treatment decisions” and also provide “evidence for future pharmacovigilance studies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tai-Li Chen, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online on December 27, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included potential residual confounding factors, lack of information on disease severity, and inclusion of predominantly White individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — Angiotensin receptor blockers are more effective than other antihypertensive medications in reducing the risk for post-stroke epilepsy (PSE), new research showed.

Investigators found angiotensin receptor blockers are better at cutting the PSE risk in individuals with high blood pressure than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.

The results suggested angiotensin receptor blockers could be a frontline strategy to proactively forestall development of epilepsy in patients with a history of stroke and hypertension, said the study’s co-lead investigator Giacomo Evangelista, MD, PhD, a resident in neurology at the Epilepsy Center at “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Stroke and Seizures Tightly Linked

Stroke is the most common cause of seizures in patients older than 60 years. About 6%-8% of new epilepsy diagnoses in older adult patients are associated with a brain ischemic event.

Hypertension is among the most common risk factors for both epilepsy and stroke. The European Society of Cardiology recommends ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers be considered first-line hypertension treatments.

Angiotensin receptor blockers seem to provide a protective effect in terms of seizures in the general population, but their possible preventive role in PSE has not been clear.

The retrospective, observational study included 528 patients (mean age, 71.4 years; 57.19% men) with hypertension and ischemic stroke without a history of epilepsy.

Researchers divided patients into those who developed PSE during the 2-year follow-up and those who didn’t. The main outcome was incidence of PSE associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy compared with other antihypertensive drug classes (ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta blockers).

Of the total, 7.2% of patients developed PSE. The study found patients treated with an angiotensin receptor blockers had a lower risk for PSE (P = .009). PSE incidence was higher among patients receiving calcium channel blockers (P = .019) and beta blockers (P = .008), but ACE inhibitors did not appear to affect PSE risk.

Further analysis showed that patients taking a beta blocker were 120% more likely to develop PSE, and those taking a calcium channel blocker were 110% more likely to develop PSE than those taking an angiotensin receptor blocker. The corresponding comparison was 65% for those taking an ACE inhibitor.

 

Potential Mechanisms

Angiotensin receptor blockers block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, which may lead to numerous neuroprotective benefits such as improved blood flow to the brain and less neuroinflammation. The blockage may also reduce epilepsy severity and seizure frequency.

ACE inhibitors work in the same system as angiotensin receptor blockers but don’t bind directly to the angiotensin receptor. Experts believe these drugs may lead to inflammation that raises the risk for PSE.

Calcium channel blockers and beta blockers may increase the likelihood of seizures by inducing excessive excitability in the brain, which can trigger seizures.

Other research presented at the meeting found that angiotensin receptor blockers reduce the risk for epilepsy in patients with hypertension even in the absence of stroke.

Using data from an US national administrative database, the retrospective cohort study included 2,261,964 eligible adult beneficiaries diagnosed with hypertension and dispensed at least one angiotensin receptor blocker, ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, or calcium channel blocker from 2010 to 2017.

The study found angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with lower epilepsy incidence than ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96), beta blockers (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90), and calcium channel blockers (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.04).

The effect was most robust for the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan and among patients with no preexisting stroke or cardiovascular conditions.

Researchers ran the analysis excluding stroke and the association was still there, said lead study author Kimford Meador, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “People with hypertension who use angiotensin receptor blockers — even if they don’t have a stroke — are less likely to develop epilepsy than if they use other major anti-hypertensives.”

 

Exciting and Suggestive

These new studies are “exciting” and “very suggestive,” said Meador. “We don’t have any true antiepileptic drugs; we have antiseizure medications. If we could reduce the incidence of epilepsy, that would be a very big thing.”

But the research to date hasn’t been “definitive” and is subject to bias, he said. “What we really need is a large randomized controlled trial to see if this is real because any observational study in humans has the potential for confounding from unmeasured variables.”

If such a study does show the effect is real, “that would change clinical practice,” said Meador.

As angiotensin receptor blockers have anti-inflammatory effects, researchers are now investigating whether this class of drugs might be useful in other diseases linked to inflammation such as multiple sclerosis, said Meador.

Commenting on the research, Alain Zingraff Looti, MD, assistant professor of neurology and public health sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said this new research is “important” although still at a “very preliminary stage.”

As the studies so far have all been observational, “they showed an association, but that doesn’t mean causality,” said Looti. These studies just looked at known potential confounders, “and there may be some unknown confounders that could explain the association,” he added.

But he acknowledged the results make sense from a biological standpoint. He noted that infusing angiotensin receptor blockers into rats causes a “cascade reaction” leading to reduced inflammation in the brain and then to less epilepsy. “Inflammation plays a major role in several models of epilepsy,” he added.

While these new results are important, Looti, too, would like to see a randomized controlled trial to confirm the findings.

Looti and Meador reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — Angiotensin receptor blockers are more effective than other antihypertensive medications in reducing the risk for post-stroke epilepsy (PSE), new research showed.

Investigators found angiotensin receptor blockers are better at cutting the PSE risk in individuals with high blood pressure than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.

The results suggested angiotensin receptor blockers could be a frontline strategy to proactively forestall development of epilepsy in patients with a history of stroke and hypertension, said the study’s co-lead investigator Giacomo Evangelista, MD, PhD, a resident in neurology at the Epilepsy Center at “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Stroke and Seizures Tightly Linked

Stroke is the most common cause of seizures in patients older than 60 years. About 6%-8% of new epilepsy diagnoses in older adult patients are associated with a brain ischemic event.

Hypertension is among the most common risk factors for both epilepsy and stroke. The European Society of Cardiology recommends ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers be considered first-line hypertension treatments.

Angiotensin receptor blockers seem to provide a protective effect in terms of seizures in the general population, but their possible preventive role in PSE has not been clear.

The retrospective, observational study included 528 patients (mean age, 71.4 years; 57.19% men) with hypertension and ischemic stroke without a history of epilepsy.

Researchers divided patients into those who developed PSE during the 2-year follow-up and those who didn’t. The main outcome was incidence of PSE associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy compared with other antihypertensive drug classes (ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta blockers).

Of the total, 7.2% of patients developed PSE. The study found patients treated with an angiotensin receptor blockers had a lower risk for PSE (P = .009). PSE incidence was higher among patients receiving calcium channel blockers (P = .019) and beta blockers (P = .008), but ACE inhibitors did not appear to affect PSE risk.

Further analysis showed that patients taking a beta blocker were 120% more likely to develop PSE, and those taking a calcium channel blocker were 110% more likely to develop PSE than those taking an angiotensin receptor blocker. The corresponding comparison was 65% for those taking an ACE inhibitor.

 

Potential Mechanisms

Angiotensin receptor blockers block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, which may lead to numerous neuroprotective benefits such as improved blood flow to the brain and less neuroinflammation. The blockage may also reduce epilepsy severity and seizure frequency.

ACE inhibitors work in the same system as angiotensin receptor blockers but don’t bind directly to the angiotensin receptor. Experts believe these drugs may lead to inflammation that raises the risk for PSE.

Calcium channel blockers and beta blockers may increase the likelihood of seizures by inducing excessive excitability in the brain, which can trigger seizures.

Other research presented at the meeting found that angiotensin receptor blockers reduce the risk for epilepsy in patients with hypertension even in the absence of stroke.

Using data from an US national administrative database, the retrospective cohort study included 2,261,964 eligible adult beneficiaries diagnosed with hypertension and dispensed at least one angiotensin receptor blocker, ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, or calcium channel blocker from 2010 to 2017.

The study found angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with lower epilepsy incidence than ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96), beta blockers (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90), and calcium channel blockers (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.04).

The effect was most robust for the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan and among patients with no preexisting stroke or cardiovascular conditions.

Researchers ran the analysis excluding stroke and the association was still there, said lead study author Kimford Meador, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “People with hypertension who use angiotensin receptor blockers — even if they don’t have a stroke — are less likely to develop epilepsy than if they use other major anti-hypertensives.”

 

Exciting and Suggestive

These new studies are “exciting” and “very suggestive,” said Meador. “We don’t have any true antiepileptic drugs; we have antiseizure medications. If we could reduce the incidence of epilepsy, that would be a very big thing.”

But the research to date hasn’t been “definitive” and is subject to bias, he said. “What we really need is a large randomized controlled trial to see if this is real because any observational study in humans has the potential for confounding from unmeasured variables.”

If such a study does show the effect is real, “that would change clinical practice,” said Meador.

As angiotensin receptor blockers have anti-inflammatory effects, researchers are now investigating whether this class of drugs might be useful in other diseases linked to inflammation such as multiple sclerosis, said Meador.

Commenting on the research, Alain Zingraff Looti, MD, assistant professor of neurology and public health sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said this new research is “important” although still at a “very preliminary stage.”

As the studies so far have all been observational, “they showed an association, but that doesn’t mean causality,” said Looti. These studies just looked at known potential confounders, “and there may be some unknown confounders that could explain the association,” he added.

But he acknowledged the results make sense from a biological standpoint. He noted that infusing angiotensin receptor blockers into rats causes a “cascade reaction” leading to reduced inflammation in the brain and then to less epilepsy. “Inflammation plays a major role in several models of epilepsy,” he added.

While these new results are important, Looti, too, would like to see a randomized controlled trial to confirm the findings.

Looti and Meador reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — Angiotensin receptor blockers are more effective than other antihypertensive medications in reducing the risk for post-stroke epilepsy (PSE), new research showed.

Investigators found angiotensin receptor blockers are better at cutting the PSE risk in individuals with high blood pressure than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.

The results suggested angiotensin receptor blockers could be a frontline strategy to proactively forestall development of epilepsy in patients with a history of stroke and hypertension, said the study’s co-lead investigator Giacomo Evangelista, MD, PhD, a resident in neurology at the Epilepsy Center at “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Stroke and Seizures Tightly Linked

Stroke is the most common cause of seizures in patients older than 60 years. About 6%-8% of new epilepsy diagnoses in older adult patients are associated with a brain ischemic event.

Hypertension is among the most common risk factors for both epilepsy and stroke. The European Society of Cardiology recommends ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers be considered first-line hypertension treatments.

Angiotensin receptor blockers seem to provide a protective effect in terms of seizures in the general population, but their possible preventive role in PSE has not been clear.

The retrospective, observational study included 528 patients (mean age, 71.4 years; 57.19% men) with hypertension and ischemic stroke without a history of epilepsy.

Researchers divided patients into those who developed PSE during the 2-year follow-up and those who didn’t. The main outcome was incidence of PSE associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy compared with other antihypertensive drug classes (ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta blockers).

Of the total, 7.2% of patients developed PSE. The study found patients treated with an angiotensin receptor blockers had a lower risk for PSE (P = .009). PSE incidence was higher among patients receiving calcium channel blockers (P = .019) and beta blockers (P = .008), but ACE inhibitors did not appear to affect PSE risk.

Further analysis showed that patients taking a beta blocker were 120% more likely to develop PSE, and those taking a calcium channel blocker were 110% more likely to develop PSE than those taking an angiotensin receptor blocker. The corresponding comparison was 65% for those taking an ACE inhibitor.

 

Potential Mechanisms

Angiotensin receptor blockers block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, which may lead to numerous neuroprotective benefits such as improved blood flow to the brain and less neuroinflammation. The blockage may also reduce epilepsy severity and seizure frequency.

ACE inhibitors work in the same system as angiotensin receptor blockers but don’t bind directly to the angiotensin receptor. Experts believe these drugs may lead to inflammation that raises the risk for PSE.

Calcium channel blockers and beta blockers may increase the likelihood of seizures by inducing excessive excitability in the brain, which can trigger seizures.

Other research presented at the meeting found that angiotensin receptor blockers reduce the risk for epilepsy in patients with hypertension even in the absence of stroke.

Using data from an US national administrative database, the retrospective cohort study included 2,261,964 eligible adult beneficiaries diagnosed with hypertension and dispensed at least one angiotensin receptor blocker, ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, or calcium channel blocker from 2010 to 2017.

The study found angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with lower epilepsy incidence than ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96), beta blockers (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90), and calcium channel blockers (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.04).

The effect was most robust for the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan and among patients with no preexisting stroke or cardiovascular conditions.

Researchers ran the analysis excluding stroke and the association was still there, said lead study author Kimford Meador, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “People with hypertension who use angiotensin receptor blockers — even if they don’t have a stroke — are less likely to develop epilepsy than if they use other major anti-hypertensives.”

 

Exciting and Suggestive

These new studies are “exciting” and “very suggestive,” said Meador. “We don’t have any true antiepileptic drugs; we have antiseizure medications. If we could reduce the incidence of epilepsy, that would be a very big thing.”

But the research to date hasn’t been “definitive” and is subject to bias, he said. “What we really need is a large randomized controlled trial to see if this is real because any observational study in humans has the potential for confounding from unmeasured variables.”

If such a study does show the effect is real, “that would change clinical practice,” said Meador.

As angiotensin receptor blockers have anti-inflammatory effects, researchers are now investigating whether this class of drugs might be useful in other diseases linked to inflammation such as multiple sclerosis, said Meador.

Commenting on the research, Alain Zingraff Looti, MD, assistant professor of neurology and public health sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said this new research is “important” although still at a “very preliminary stage.”

As the studies so far have all been observational, “they showed an association, but that doesn’t mean causality,” said Looti. These studies just looked at known potential confounders, “and there may be some unknown confounders that could explain the association,” he added.

But he acknowledged the results make sense from a biological standpoint. He noted that infusing angiotensin receptor blockers into rats causes a “cascade reaction” leading to reduced inflammation in the brain and then to less epilepsy. “Inflammation plays a major role in several models of epilepsy,” he added.

While these new results are important, Looti, too, would like to see a randomized controlled trial to confirm the findings.

Looti and Meador reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

New questions about the landmark trial that launched the antiplatelet drug ticagrelor worldwide are being raised after an investigation uncovered more information about how the PLATO study was conducted.

Peter Doshi, PhD, senior editor at The BMJ, obtained primary records for the trial and unpublished data through a Freedom of Information Act request, and has detailed inconsistencies and omissions in data reporting from the 2009 trial originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The new investigation into the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial is published in The BMJ.

The findings come as generic versions of ticagrelor (Brilinta) are expected to become available soon in the United States. Ticagrelor is the only P2Y12 inhibitor still under patent, and in 2022, the United States spent more than $750 million on it, according to the report.

PLATO, sponsored by ticagrelor manufacturer AstraZeneca, included more than 18,000 patients in 43 countries. Investigators reported that ticagrelor reduced deaths from vascular causes, heart attack, or stroke compared with clopidogrel (Plavix). However, in a subgroup analysis, among US patients, there were more deaths in the ticagrelor group, and AstraZeneca failed its first bid for approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

 

Failed First Bid for FDA Approval

AstraZeneca resubmitted its application, which was met with objections by some FDA staff members, including medical officer Thomas Marciniak, who called the resubmission “the worst in my experience regarding completeness of the submissions and the sponsor responding completely and accurately to requests,” Doshi reports.

Despite the objections, the FDA in 2011 approved ticagrelor for acute coronary syndrome, kicking off intense controversy over the trial, as several other studies have failed to replicate PLATO’s positive results.

Doubts have grown about its apparent advantage over cheaper, off-patent P2Y12 inhibitors such as clopidogrel and prasugrel.

“Critics said it was noteworthy that ticagrelor failed in the US,” Doshi writes, “the only high enrolling country where sites were not monitored by the sponsor itself.” Doshi’s report points out that critics of the trial “highlight that AstraZeneca itself carried out the data monitoring for PLATO except for sites that were monitored by third party contract research organizations. In the four countries exclusively monitored by non-sponsor personnel—Georgia, Israel, Russia, and the US—ticagrelor fared worse.”

Victor Serebruany, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, said he was initially impressed by the trial results but became skeptical after noticing inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. He filed a complaint with the US District Court in the District of Columbia, suggesting that the cardiovascular events in the study “may have been manipulated.”

 

US Department of Justice Investigation

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation in 2013 and closed it in 2014 with no further action. Serebruany continues to publish critiques of the trial 15 years later but told The BMJ he has little hope that the questions will be resolved unless the DOJ re-engages with an investigation.

Doshi also points out discrepancies in the data reported. In the 2009 paper, published as an intent-to-treat analysis, investigators said there were 905 total deaths from any cause among all randomized patients. “An internal company report states, however, that 983 patients had died at this point. While 33 deaths occurred after the follow-up period, the NEJM tally still leaves out 45 deaths ‘discovered after withdrawal of consent,’” he reports.

The NEJM responded to Doshi that while it didn’t dispute the error in the number of deaths, it was uncertain about publishing a correction, citing new — not yet published — guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. NEJM Editor-in-Chief Eric Rubin told The BMJ that “for older manuscripts, correction is not necessarily appropriate unless there would be an effect on clinical practice.”

Doshi’s investigation includes an interview with Eric Bates, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and a co-author of the US guidelines that recommend ticagrelor, who said he was “increasingly disturbed by how trial after trial came out as being not dramatically positive in any way.” Bates is now calling for a review of ticagrelor’s recommendation in guidelines, according to the report.

AstraZeneca declined to be interviewed for the BMJ investigation, according to Doshi, and a spokesperson from the company told the journal by email that they have “nothing to add,” directing editors to its 2014 public statement after the DOJ’s investigation into PLATO. The BMJ said PLATO trial co-chairs Robert A. Harrington, MD, and Lars Wallentin, MD, did not respond to The BMJ’s requests for comment.

 

Will the Guidelines Be Changed Now?

“I know and have worked with Drs Wallentin and Harrington,” Bates told Medscape Medical News, “and find them to be honest, intelligent clinical scientists with the highest ethical standards who manage conflicts of interest as well as can be done in the clinical research arena, where industry support is required to develop new knowledge,” he said.

“If there is a concern that AstraZeneca was manipulating the dataset and FDA submission, that is an important issue,” Bates said. “The US paradox and the failure of any other antiplatelet trial to find a comparative mortality advantage are two unexplained issues with PLATO that provide good fodder for conspiracy theories. I agree with the NEJM that this trial is 15 years old and may not be worth readjudicating in the current treatment era.”

Other calls for revisiting guidelines have come after disappointing postlicensure studies have repeatedly demonstrated that ticagrelor has “similar efficacy to clopidogrel but with increased bleeding and [dyspnea],” Doshi reports.

“My concern is the marketing spin by AstraZeneca and the promotion of ticagrelor by six to eight ‘thought leaders’ consistently funded by AstraZeneca over the past 10 years,” said Bates. “They have flooded the literature with supportive subset and post hoc analyses, review articles, and ‘meta-analyses’ flawed by selection and intellectual bias, and public interviews that consistently discount the findings of the many subsequent randomized controlled trials that have not supported the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel or prasugrel.”

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

New questions about the landmark trial that launched the antiplatelet drug ticagrelor worldwide are being raised after an investigation uncovered more information about how the PLATO study was conducted.

Peter Doshi, PhD, senior editor at The BMJ, obtained primary records for the trial and unpublished data through a Freedom of Information Act request, and has detailed inconsistencies and omissions in data reporting from the 2009 trial originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The new investigation into the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial is published in The BMJ.

The findings come as generic versions of ticagrelor (Brilinta) are expected to become available soon in the United States. Ticagrelor is the only P2Y12 inhibitor still under patent, and in 2022, the United States spent more than $750 million on it, according to the report.

PLATO, sponsored by ticagrelor manufacturer AstraZeneca, included more than 18,000 patients in 43 countries. Investigators reported that ticagrelor reduced deaths from vascular causes, heart attack, or stroke compared with clopidogrel (Plavix). However, in a subgroup analysis, among US patients, there were more deaths in the ticagrelor group, and AstraZeneca failed its first bid for approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

 

Failed First Bid for FDA Approval

AstraZeneca resubmitted its application, which was met with objections by some FDA staff members, including medical officer Thomas Marciniak, who called the resubmission “the worst in my experience regarding completeness of the submissions and the sponsor responding completely and accurately to requests,” Doshi reports.

Despite the objections, the FDA in 2011 approved ticagrelor for acute coronary syndrome, kicking off intense controversy over the trial, as several other studies have failed to replicate PLATO’s positive results.

Doubts have grown about its apparent advantage over cheaper, off-patent P2Y12 inhibitors such as clopidogrel and prasugrel.

“Critics said it was noteworthy that ticagrelor failed in the US,” Doshi writes, “the only high enrolling country where sites were not monitored by the sponsor itself.” Doshi’s report points out that critics of the trial “highlight that AstraZeneca itself carried out the data monitoring for PLATO except for sites that were monitored by third party contract research organizations. In the four countries exclusively monitored by non-sponsor personnel—Georgia, Israel, Russia, and the US—ticagrelor fared worse.”

Victor Serebruany, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, said he was initially impressed by the trial results but became skeptical after noticing inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. He filed a complaint with the US District Court in the District of Columbia, suggesting that the cardiovascular events in the study “may have been manipulated.”

 

US Department of Justice Investigation

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation in 2013 and closed it in 2014 with no further action. Serebruany continues to publish critiques of the trial 15 years later but told The BMJ he has little hope that the questions will be resolved unless the DOJ re-engages with an investigation.

Doshi also points out discrepancies in the data reported. In the 2009 paper, published as an intent-to-treat analysis, investigators said there were 905 total deaths from any cause among all randomized patients. “An internal company report states, however, that 983 patients had died at this point. While 33 deaths occurred after the follow-up period, the NEJM tally still leaves out 45 deaths ‘discovered after withdrawal of consent,’” he reports.

The NEJM responded to Doshi that while it didn’t dispute the error in the number of deaths, it was uncertain about publishing a correction, citing new — not yet published — guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. NEJM Editor-in-Chief Eric Rubin told The BMJ that “for older manuscripts, correction is not necessarily appropriate unless there would be an effect on clinical practice.”

Doshi’s investigation includes an interview with Eric Bates, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and a co-author of the US guidelines that recommend ticagrelor, who said he was “increasingly disturbed by how trial after trial came out as being not dramatically positive in any way.” Bates is now calling for a review of ticagrelor’s recommendation in guidelines, according to the report.

AstraZeneca declined to be interviewed for the BMJ investigation, according to Doshi, and a spokesperson from the company told the journal by email that they have “nothing to add,” directing editors to its 2014 public statement after the DOJ’s investigation into PLATO. The BMJ said PLATO trial co-chairs Robert A. Harrington, MD, and Lars Wallentin, MD, did not respond to The BMJ’s requests for comment.

 

Will the Guidelines Be Changed Now?

“I know and have worked with Drs Wallentin and Harrington,” Bates told Medscape Medical News, “and find them to be honest, intelligent clinical scientists with the highest ethical standards who manage conflicts of interest as well as can be done in the clinical research arena, where industry support is required to develop new knowledge,” he said.

“If there is a concern that AstraZeneca was manipulating the dataset and FDA submission, that is an important issue,” Bates said. “The US paradox and the failure of any other antiplatelet trial to find a comparative mortality advantage are two unexplained issues with PLATO that provide good fodder for conspiracy theories. I agree with the NEJM that this trial is 15 years old and may not be worth readjudicating in the current treatment era.”

Other calls for revisiting guidelines have come after disappointing postlicensure studies have repeatedly demonstrated that ticagrelor has “similar efficacy to clopidogrel but with increased bleeding and [dyspnea],” Doshi reports.

“My concern is the marketing spin by AstraZeneca and the promotion of ticagrelor by six to eight ‘thought leaders’ consistently funded by AstraZeneca over the past 10 years,” said Bates. “They have flooded the literature with supportive subset and post hoc analyses, review articles, and ‘meta-analyses’ flawed by selection and intellectual bias, and public interviews that consistently discount the findings of the many subsequent randomized controlled trials that have not supported the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel or prasugrel.”

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

New questions about the landmark trial that launched the antiplatelet drug ticagrelor worldwide are being raised after an investigation uncovered more information about how the PLATO study was conducted.

Peter Doshi, PhD, senior editor at The BMJ, obtained primary records for the trial and unpublished data through a Freedom of Information Act request, and has detailed inconsistencies and omissions in data reporting from the 2009 trial originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The new investigation into the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial is published in The BMJ.

The findings come as generic versions of ticagrelor (Brilinta) are expected to become available soon in the United States. Ticagrelor is the only P2Y12 inhibitor still under patent, and in 2022, the United States spent more than $750 million on it, according to the report.

PLATO, sponsored by ticagrelor manufacturer AstraZeneca, included more than 18,000 patients in 43 countries. Investigators reported that ticagrelor reduced deaths from vascular causes, heart attack, or stroke compared with clopidogrel (Plavix). However, in a subgroup analysis, among US patients, there were more deaths in the ticagrelor group, and AstraZeneca failed its first bid for approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

 

Failed First Bid for FDA Approval

AstraZeneca resubmitted its application, which was met with objections by some FDA staff members, including medical officer Thomas Marciniak, who called the resubmission “the worst in my experience regarding completeness of the submissions and the sponsor responding completely and accurately to requests,” Doshi reports.

Despite the objections, the FDA in 2011 approved ticagrelor for acute coronary syndrome, kicking off intense controversy over the trial, as several other studies have failed to replicate PLATO’s positive results.

Doubts have grown about its apparent advantage over cheaper, off-patent P2Y12 inhibitors such as clopidogrel and prasugrel.

“Critics said it was noteworthy that ticagrelor failed in the US,” Doshi writes, “the only high enrolling country where sites were not monitored by the sponsor itself.” Doshi’s report points out that critics of the trial “highlight that AstraZeneca itself carried out the data monitoring for PLATO except for sites that were monitored by third party contract research organizations. In the four countries exclusively monitored by non-sponsor personnel—Georgia, Israel, Russia, and the US—ticagrelor fared worse.”

Victor Serebruany, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, said he was initially impressed by the trial results but became skeptical after noticing inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. He filed a complaint with the US District Court in the District of Columbia, suggesting that the cardiovascular events in the study “may have been manipulated.”

 

US Department of Justice Investigation

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation in 2013 and closed it in 2014 with no further action. Serebruany continues to publish critiques of the trial 15 years later but told The BMJ he has little hope that the questions will be resolved unless the DOJ re-engages with an investigation.

Doshi also points out discrepancies in the data reported. In the 2009 paper, published as an intent-to-treat analysis, investigators said there were 905 total deaths from any cause among all randomized patients. “An internal company report states, however, that 983 patients had died at this point. While 33 deaths occurred after the follow-up period, the NEJM tally still leaves out 45 deaths ‘discovered after withdrawal of consent,’” he reports.

The NEJM responded to Doshi that while it didn’t dispute the error in the number of deaths, it was uncertain about publishing a correction, citing new — not yet published — guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. NEJM Editor-in-Chief Eric Rubin told The BMJ that “for older manuscripts, correction is not necessarily appropriate unless there would be an effect on clinical practice.”

Doshi’s investigation includes an interview with Eric Bates, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and a co-author of the US guidelines that recommend ticagrelor, who said he was “increasingly disturbed by how trial after trial came out as being not dramatically positive in any way.” Bates is now calling for a review of ticagrelor’s recommendation in guidelines, according to the report.

AstraZeneca declined to be interviewed for the BMJ investigation, according to Doshi, and a spokesperson from the company told the journal by email that they have “nothing to add,” directing editors to its 2014 public statement after the DOJ’s investigation into PLATO. The BMJ said PLATO trial co-chairs Robert A. Harrington, MD, and Lars Wallentin, MD, did not respond to The BMJ’s requests for comment.

 

Will the Guidelines Be Changed Now?

“I know and have worked with Drs Wallentin and Harrington,” Bates told Medscape Medical News, “and find them to be honest, intelligent clinical scientists with the highest ethical standards who manage conflicts of interest as well as can be done in the clinical research arena, where industry support is required to develop new knowledge,” he said.

“If there is a concern that AstraZeneca was manipulating the dataset and FDA submission, that is an important issue,” Bates said. “The US paradox and the failure of any other antiplatelet trial to find a comparative mortality advantage are two unexplained issues with PLATO that provide good fodder for conspiracy theories. I agree with the NEJM that this trial is 15 years old and may not be worth readjudicating in the current treatment era.”

Other calls for revisiting guidelines have come after disappointing postlicensure studies have repeatedly demonstrated that ticagrelor has “similar efficacy to clopidogrel but with increased bleeding and [dyspnea],” Doshi reports.

“My concern is the marketing spin by AstraZeneca and the promotion of ticagrelor by six to eight ‘thought leaders’ consistently funded by AstraZeneca over the past 10 years,” said Bates. “They have flooded the literature with supportive subset and post hoc analyses, review articles, and ‘meta-analyses’ flawed by selection and intellectual bias, and public interviews that consistently discount the findings of the many subsequent randomized controlled trials that have not supported the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel or prasugrel.”

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener, from the Faculty of Medicine at the University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. In this video, I would like to cover six publications on stroke, which were published this fall. 

The Best Thrombolytic?

Let me start with systemic thrombolysis. We now have two thrombolytic agents available. One is the well-known alteplase, and newly approved for the treatment of stroke is tenecteplase. The ATTEST-2 study in the United Kingdom, published in The Lancet Neurology, compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight as a bolus with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg body weight as an infusion over 60 minutes in the 4.5-hour time window in 1777 patients with ischemic stroke.

There was no significant difference between the two thrombolytics for the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days. There was also no difference with respect to mortality, intracranial bleeding, or extracranial bleeding. 

We finally have 11 randomized controlled trials that compared tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis of these randomized trials was published in Neurology. The analysis included 3700 patients treated with tenecteplase and 3700 patients treated with alteplase. For the primary endpoint, excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 after 90 days, there was a significant benefit for tenecteplase (relative risk, 1.05), but the absolute difference was very small, at 3%. There was no difference in mortality or bleeding complications. 

In conclusion, I think both substances are great. They are effective. Tenecteplase is most probably the drug which should be used in people who have to transfer from a primary stroke center to a dedicated stroke center that provides thrombectomy. Otherwise, I think it’s a choice of the physician as to which thrombolytic agent to use. 

 

Mobile Stroke Units

A highly debated topic is mobile stroke units. These stroke units have a CT scanner and laboratory on board, and this makes it possible to perform thrombolysis on the way to the hospital. A retrospective, observational study collected data between 2018 and 2023, and included 19,400 patients with acute stroke, of whom 1237, or 6.4%, were treated in a mobile stroke unit. This study was published in JAMA Neurology. 

The modified Rankin Scale score at the time of discharge was better in patients treated with a mobile stroke unit, but the absolute benefit was only 0.03 points on the modified Rankin Scale. The question is whether this is cost-effective, and can we really do this at times when there is a traumatic shortage of physicians and nursing staff in the hospital? 

 

DOAC Reversal Agents

Oral anticoagulation, as you know, is usually considered a contraindication for systemic thrombolysis. Idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody, was developed to reverse the biological activity of dabigatran and then allow systemic thrombolysis.

A recent publication in Neurology analyzed 13 cohort studies with 553 stroke patients on dabigatran who received idarucizumab prior to systemic thrombolysis, and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 4%. This means it’s obviously possible to perform thrombolysis when the activity of dabigatran is neutralized by idarucizumab.

Unfortunately, until today, we have no data on whether this can also be done with andexanet alfa in people who are treated with a factor Xa inhibitor like, for example, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban. 

 

Anticoagulation in ESUS 

My next topic is ESUS, or embolic stroke of undetermined source. We have four large randomized trials and three smaller trials that compared antiplatelet therapy with DOACs in patients with ESUS. A group in Neurology published a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled studies with, altogether, 14,800 patients with ESUS. 

The comparison between antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants showed no difference for recurrent ischemic stroke, and also not for major subgroups. This means that people with ESUS should receive antiplatelet therapy, most probably aspirin. 

 

Anticoagulation Post–Ischemic Stroke With AF 

My final topic is the optimal time to start anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation who suffer an ischemic stroke. The OPTIMAS study, published in The Lancet, randomized 3650 patients who were anticoagulated with DOACs early (which means less than 4 days) or delayed (between 7 and 14 days). There was no difference in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism at 90 days.

The conclusion is that, in most cases, we can probably initiate anticoagulation in people with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation within the first 4 days. 

Dear colleagues, this is an exciting time for the stroke field. I presented six new studies that have impact, I think, on the management of patients with ischemic stroke.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. He reported conflicts of interest with Abbott, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Teva, WebMD, and The German Research Council. He also serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener, from the Faculty of Medicine at the University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. In this video, I would like to cover six publications on stroke, which were published this fall. 

The Best Thrombolytic?

Let me start with systemic thrombolysis. We now have two thrombolytic agents available. One is the well-known alteplase, and newly approved for the treatment of stroke is tenecteplase. The ATTEST-2 study in the United Kingdom, published in The Lancet Neurology, compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight as a bolus with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg body weight as an infusion over 60 minutes in the 4.5-hour time window in 1777 patients with ischemic stroke.

There was no significant difference between the two thrombolytics for the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days. There was also no difference with respect to mortality, intracranial bleeding, or extracranial bleeding. 

We finally have 11 randomized controlled trials that compared tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis of these randomized trials was published in Neurology. The analysis included 3700 patients treated with tenecteplase and 3700 patients treated with alteplase. For the primary endpoint, excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 after 90 days, there was a significant benefit for tenecteplase (relative risk, 1.05), but the absolute difference was very small, at 3%. There was no difference in mortality or bleeding complications. 

In conclusion, I think both substances are great. They are effective. Tenecteplase is most probably the drug which should be used in people who have to transfer from a primary stroke center to a dedicated stroke center that provides thrombectomy. Otherwise, I think it’s a choice of the physician as to which thrombolytic agent to use. 

 

Mobile Stroke Units

A highly debated topic is mobile stroke units. These stroke units have a CT scanner and laboratory on board, and this makes it possible to perform thrombolysis on the way to the hospital. A retrospective, observational study collected data between 2018 and 2023, and included 19,400 patients with acute stroke, of whom 1237, or 6.4%, were treated in a mobile stroke unit. This study was published in JAMA Neurology. 

The modified Rankin Scale score at the time of discharge was better in patients treated with a mobile stroke unit, but the absolute benefit was only 0.03 points on the modified Rankin Scale. The question is whether this is cost-effective, and can we really do this at times when there is a traumatic shortage of physicians and nursing staff in the hospital? 

 

DOAC Reversal Agents

Oral anticoagulation, as you know, is usually considered a contraindication for systemic thrombolysis. Idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody, was developed to reverse the biological activity of dabigatran and then allow systemic thrombolysis.

A recent publication in Neurology analyzed 13 cohort studies with 553 stroke patients on dabigatran who received idarucizumab prior to systemic thrombolysis, and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 4%. This means it’s obviously possible to perform thrombolysis when the activity of dabigatran is neutralized by idarucizumab.

Unfortunately, until today, we have no data on whether this can also be done with andexanet alfa in people who are treated with a factor Xa inhibitor like, for example, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban. 

 

Anticoagulation in ESUS 

My next topic is ESUS, or embolic stroke of undetermined source. We have four large randomized trials and three smaller trials that compared antiplatelet therapy with DOACs in patients with ESUS. A group in Neurology published a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled studies with, altogether, 14,800 patients with ESUS. 

The comparison between antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants showed no difference for recurrent ischemic stroke, and also not for major subgroups. This means that people with ESUS should receive antiplatelet therapy, most probably aspirin. 

 

Anticoagulation Post–Ischemic Stroke With AF 

My final topic is the optimal time to start anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation who suffer an ischemic stroke. The OPTIMAS study, published in The Lancet, randomized 3650 patients who were anticoagulated with DOACs early (which means less than 4 days) or delayed (between 7 and 14 days). There was no difference in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism at 90 days.

The conclusion is that, in most cases, we can probably initiate anticoagulation in people with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation within the first 4 days. 

Dear colleagues, this is an exciting time for the stroke field. I presented six new studies that have impact, I think, on the management of patients with ischemic stroke.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. He reported conflicts of interest with Abbott, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Teva, WebMD, and The German Research Council. He also serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener, from the Faculty of Medicine at the University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. In this video, I would like to cover six publications on stroke, which were published this fall. 

The Best Thrombolytic?

Let me start with systemic thrombolysis. We now have two thrombolytic agents available. One is the well-known alteplase, and newly approved for the treatment of stroke is tenecteplase. The ATTEST-2 study in the United Kingdom, published in The Lancet Neurology, compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight as a bolus with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg body weight as an infusion over 60 minutes in the 4.5-hour time window in 1777 patients with ischemic stroke.

There was no significant difference between the two thrombolytics for the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days. There was also no difference with respect to mortality, intracranial bleeding, or extracranial bleeding. 

We finally have 11 randomized controlled trials that compared tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis of these randomized trials was published in Neurology. The analysis included 3700 patients treated with tenecteplase and 3700 patients treated with alteplase. For the primary endpoint, excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 after 90 days, there was a significant benefit for tenecteplase (relative risk, 1.05), but the absolute difference was very small, at 3%. There was no difference in mortality or bleeding complications. 

In conclusion, I think both substances are great. They are effective. Tenecteplase is most probably the drug which should be used in people who have to transfer from a primary stroke center to a dedicated stroke center that provides thrombectomy. Otherwise, I think it’s a choice of the physician as to which thrombolytic agent to use. 

 

Mobile Stroke Units

A highly debated topic is mobile stroke units. These stroke units have a CT scanner and laboratory on board, and this makes it possible to perform thrombolysis on the way to the hospital. A retrospective, observational study collected data between 2018 and 2023, and included 19,400 patients with acute stroke, of whom 1237, or 6.4%, were treated in a mobile stroke unit. This study was published in JAMA Neurology. 

The modified Rankin Scale score at the time of discharge was better in patients treated with a mobile stroke unit, but the absolute benefit was only 0.03 points on the modified Rankin Scale. The question is whether this is cost-effective, and can we really do this at times when there is a traumatic shortage of physicians and nursing staff in the hospital? 

 

DOAC Reversal Agents

Oral anticoagulation, as you know, is usually considered a contraindication for systemic thrombolysis. Idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody, was developed to reverse the biological activity of dabigatran and then allow systemic thrombolysis.

A recent publication in Neurology analyzed 13 cohort studies with 553 stroke patients on dabigatran who received idarucizumab prior to systemic thrombolysis, and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 4%. This means it’s obviously possible to perform thrombolysis when the activity of dabigatran is neutralized by idarucizumab.

Unfortunately, until today, we have no data on whether this can also be done with andexanet alfa in people who are treated with a factor Xa inhibitor like, for example, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban. 

 

Anticoagulation in ESUS 

My next topic is ESUS, or embolic stroke of undetermined source. We have four large randomized trials and three smaller trials that compared antiplatelet therapy with DOACs in patients with ESUS. A group in Neurology published a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled studies with, altogether, 14,800 patients with ESUS. 

The comparison between antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants showed no difference for recurrent ischemic stroke, and also not for major subgroups. This means that people with ESUS should receive antiplatelet therapy, most probably aspirin. 

 

Anticoagulation Post–Ischemic Stroke With AF 

My final topic is the optimal time to start anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation who suffer an ischemic stroke. The OPTIMAS study, published in The Lancet, randomized 3650 patients who were anticoagulated with DOACs early (which means less than 4 days) or delayed (between 7 and 14 days). There was no difference in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism at 90 days.

The conclusion is that, in most cases, we can probably initiate anticoagulation in people with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation within the first 4 days. 

Dear colleagues, this is an exciting time for the stroke field. I presented six new studies that have impact, I think, on the management of patients with ischemic stroke.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. He reported conflicts of interest with Abbott, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Teva, WebMD, and The German Research Council. He also serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs.

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

TOPLINE: 

Hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and smoking are more strongly linked to increased risk for severe stroke than nonsevere stroke, whereas a high waist-to-hip ratio is more closely associated with nonsevere stroke, a global study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• The INTERSTROKE case-control study included nearly 27,000 participants, half of whom had a first acute stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and the other half acting as age- and sex-matched controls.
• Participants (mean age, 62 years; 40% women) were recruited across 142 centers in 32 countries between 2007 and 2015. Baseline demographics and lifestyle risk factors for stroke were gathered using standardized questionnaires
• Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores measured within 72 hours of hospital admission were used to classify stroke severity (0-3, nonsevere stroke; 4-6, severe stroke).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the participants with acute stroke, 64% had nonsevere stroke and 36% had severe stroke, based on the mRS.
• Hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and smoking showed a significantly stronger association with severe stroke than with nonsevere stroke (odds ratios [ORs], 3.21 vs 2.87, 4.70 vs 3.61, and 1.87 vs 1.65, respectively; all P < .001).
• A high waist-to-hip ratio showed a stronger association with nonsevere stroke than with severe stroke (OR, 1.37 vs 1.11, respectively; P < .001).
• Diabetes, poor diet, physical inactivity, and stress were linked to increased odds of both severe and nonsevere stroke, whereas alcohol consumption and high apolipoprotein B levels were linked to higher odds of only nonsevere stroke. No significant differences in odds were observed between stroke severities in matched individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings emphasize the importance of controlling high blood pressure, which is the most important modifiable risk factor for stroke globally,” lead author Catriona Reddin, MB BCh, BAO, MSc, School of Medicine, University of Galway, in Ireland, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations included potential unmeasured confounders; reliance on the mRS score, which may have underestimated stroke severity; and challenges with recruiting patients with severe stroke in a case-control study. Smoking-related comorbidities and regional or sex-related variations in alcohol intake may also have influenced the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by various organizations, including health research councils and foundations from Canada, Sweden, and Scotland, and pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and MSD. One investigator reported receiving funding from the Irish Clinical Academic Training Programme, the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board, the Health Service Executive, National Doctors Training and Planning, and the Health and Social Care, Research and Development Division in Northern Ireland. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and smoking are more strongly linked to increased risk for severe stroke than nonsevere stroke, whereas a high waist-to-hip ratio is more closely associated with nonsevere stroke, a global study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• The INTERSTROKE case-control study included nearly 27,000 participants, half of whom had a first acute stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and the other half acting as age- and sex-matched controls.
• Participants (mean age, 62 years; 40% women) were recruited across 142 centers in 32 countries between 2007 and 2015. Baseline demographics and lifestyle risk factors for stroke were gathered using standardized questionnaires
• Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores measured within 72 hours of hospital admission were used to classify stroke severity (0-3, nonsevere stroke; 4-6, severe stroke).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the participants with acute stroke, 64% had nonsevere stroke and 36% had severe stroke, based on the mRS.
• Hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and smoking showed a significantly stronger association with severe stroke than with nonsevere stroke (odds ratios [ORs], 3.21 vs 2.87, 4.70 vs 3.61, and 1.87 vs 1.65, respectively; all P < .001).
• A high waist-to-hip ratio showed a stronger association with nonsevere stroke than with severe stroke (OR, 1.37 vs 1.11, respectively; P < .001).
• Diabetes, poor diet, physical inactivity, and stress were linked to increased odds of both severe and nonsevere stroke, whereas alcohol consumption and high apolipoprotein B levels were linked to higher odds of only nonsevere stroke. No significant differences in odds were observed between stroke severities in matched individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings emphasize the importance of controlling high blood pressure, which is the most important modifiable risk factor for stroke globally,” lead author Catriona Reddin, MB BCh, BAO, MSc, School of Medicine, University of Galway, in Ireland, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations included potential unmeasured confounders; reliance on the mRS score, which may have underestimated stroke severity; and challenges with recruiting patients with severe stroke in a case-control study. Smoking-related comorbidities and regional or sex-related variations in alcohol intake may also have influenced the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by various organizations, including health research councils and foundations from Canada, Sweden, and Scotland, and pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and MSD. One investigator reported receiving funding from the Irish Clinical Academic Training Programme, the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board, the Health Service Executive, National Doctors Training and Planning, and the Health and Social Care, Research and Development Division in Northern Ireland. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and smoking are more strongly linked to increased risk for severe stroke than nonsevere stroke, whereas a high waist-to-hip ratio is more closely associated with nonsevere stroke, a global study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• The INTERSTROKE case-control study included nearly 27,000 participants, half of whom had a first acute stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and the other half acting as age- and sex-matched controls.
• Participants (mean age, 62 years; 40% women) were recruited across 142 centers in 32 countries between 2007 and 2015. Baseline demographics and lifestyle risk factors for stroke were gathered using standardized questionnaires
• Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores measured within 72 hours of hospital admission were used to classify stroke severity (0-3, nonsevere stroke; 4-6, severe stroke).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the participants with acute stroke, 64% had nonsevere stroke and 36% had severe stroke, based on the mRS.
• Hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and smoking showed a significantly stronger association with severe stroke than with nonsevere stroke (odds ratios [ORs], 3.21 vs 2.87, 4.70 vs 3.61, and 1.87 vs 1.65, respectively; all P < .001).
• A high waist-to-hip ratio showed a stronger association with nonsevere stroke than with severe stroke (OR, 1.37 vs 1.11, respectively; P < .001).
• Diabetes, poor diet, physical inactivity, and stress were linked to increased odds of both severe and nonsevere stroke, whereas alcohol consumption and high apolipoprotein B levels were linked to higher odds of only nonsevere stroke. No significant differences in odds were observed between stroke severities in matched individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings emphasize the importance of controlling high blood pressure, which is the most important modifiable risk factor for stroke globally,” lead author Catriona Reddin, MB BCh, BAO, MSc, School of Medicine, University of Galway, in Ireland, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations included potential unmeasured confounders; reliance on the mRS score, which may have underestimated stroke severity; and challenges with recruiting patients with severe stroke in a case-control study. Smoking-related comorbidities and regional or sex-related variations in alcohol intake may also have influenced the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by various organizations, including health research councils and foundations from Canada, Sweden, and Scotland, and pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and MSD. One investigator reported receiving funding from the Irish Clinical Academic Training Programme, the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board, the Health Service Executive, National Doctors Training and Planning, and the Health and Social Care, Research and Development Division in Northern Ireland. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I was really struggling to think of a good analogy to explain the glaring problem of polygenic risk scores (PRS) this week. But I think I have it now. Go with me on this.

An alien spaceship parks itself, Independence Day style, above a local office building. 

But unlike the aliens that gave such a hard time to Will Smith and Brent Spiner, these are benevolent, technologically superior guys. They shine a mysterious green light down on the building and then announce, maybe via telepathy, that 6% of the people in that building will have a heart attack in the next year.

 

They move on to the next building. “Five percent will have a heart attack in the next year.” And the next, 7%. And the next, 2%. 

Let’s assume the aliens are entirely accurate. What do you do with this information?

Most of us would suggest that you find out who was in the buildings with the higher percentages. You check their cholesterol levels, get them to exercise more, do some stress tests, and so on.

But that said, you’d still be spending a lot of money on a bunch of people who were not going to have heart attacks. So, a crack team of spies — in my mind, this is definitely led by a grizzled Ian McShane — infiltrate the alien ship, steal this predictive ray gun, and start pointing it, not at buildings but at people. 

In this scenario, one person could have a 10% chance of having a heart attack in the next year. Another person has a 50% chance. The aliens, seeing this, leave us one final message before flying into the great beyond: “No, you guys are doing it wrong.”

This week: The people and companies using an advanced predictive technology, PRS , wrong — and a study that shows just how problematic this is.

We all know that genes play a significant role in our health outcomes. Some diseases (Huntington disease, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, hemochromatosis, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, for example) are entirely driven by genetic mutations.

The vast majority of chronic diseases we face are not driven by genetics, but they may be enhanced by genetics. Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a prime example. There are clearly environmental risk factors, like smoking, that dramatically increase risk. But there are also genetic underpinnings; about half the risk for CHD comes from genetic variation, according to one study.

But in the case of those common diseases, it’s not one gene that leads to increased risk; it’s the aggregate effect of multiple risk genes, each contributing a small amount of risk to the final total. 

The promise of PRS was based on this fact. Take the genome of an individual, identify all the risk genes, and integrate them into some final number that represents your genetic risk of developing CHD.

The way you derive a PRS is take a big group of people and sequence their genomes. Then, you see who develops the disease of interest — in this case, CHD. If the people who develop CHD are more likely to have a particular mutation, that mutation goes in the risk score. Risk scores can integrate tens, hundreds, even thousands of individual mutations to create that final score.

There are literally dozens of PRS for CHD. And there are companies that will calculate yours right now for a reasonable fee.

The accuracy of these scores is assessed at the population level. It’s the alien ray gun thing. Researchers apply the PRS to a big group of people and say 20% of them should develop CHD. If indeed 20% develop CHD, they say the score is accurate. And that’s true.

But what happens next is the problem. Companies and even doctors have been marketing PRS to individuals. And honestly, it sounds amazing. “We’ll use sophisticated techniques to analyze your genetic code and integrate the information to give you your personal risk for CHD.” Or dementia. Or other diseases. A lot of people would want to know this information. 

It turns out, though, that this is where the system breaks down. And it is nicely illustrated by this study, appearing November 16 in JAMA.

The authors wanted to see how PRS, which are developed to predict disease in a group of people, work when applied to an individual.

They identified 48 previously published PRS for CHD. They applied those scores to more than 170,000 individuals across multiple genetic databases. And, by and large, the scores worked as advertised, at least across the entire group. The weighted accuracy of all 48 scores was around 78%. They aren’t perfect, of course. We wouldn’t expect them to be, since CHD is not entirely driven by genetics. But 78% accurate isn’t too bad.

But that accuracy is at the population level. At the level of the office building. At the individual level, it was a vastly different story.

This is best illustrated by this plot, which shows the score from 48 different PRS for CHD within the same person. A note here: It is arranged by the publication date of the risk score, but these were all assessed on a single blood sample at a single point in time in this study participant.

 

The individual scores are all over the map. Using one risk score gives an individual a risk that is near the 99th percentile — a ticking time bomb of CHD. Another score indicates a level of risk at the very bottom of the spectrum — highly reassuring. A bunch of scores fall somewhere in between. In other words, as a doctor, the risk I will discuss with this patient is more strongly determined by which PRS I happen to choose than by his actual genetic risk, whatever that is.

This may seem counterintuitive. All these risk scores were similarly accurate within a population; how can they all give different results to an individual? The answer is simpler than you may think. As long as a given score makes one extra good prediction for each extra bad prediction, its accuracy is not changed. 

Let’s imagine we have a population of 40 people.

 

Risk score model 1 correctly classified 30 of them for 75% accuracy. Great.

 

Risk score model 2 also correctly classified 30 of our 40 individuals, for 75% accuracy. It’s just a different 30.

 

Risk score model 3 also correctly classified 30 of 40, but another different 30.

I’ve colored this to show you all the different overlaps. What you can see is that although each score has similar accuracy, the individual people have a bunch of different colors, indicating that some scores worked for them and some didn’t. That’s a real problem. 

This has not stopped companies from advertising PRS for all sorts of diseases. Companies are even using PRS to decide which fetuses to implant during IVF therapy, which is a particularly egregiously wrong use of this technology that I have written about before.

How do you fix this? Our aliens tried to warn us. This is not how you are supposed to use this ray gun. You are supposed to use it to identify groups of people at higher risk to direct more resources to that group. That’s really all you can do.

It’s also possible that we need to match the risk score to the individual in a better way. This is likely driven by the fact that risk scores tend to work best in the populations in which they were developed, and many of them were developed in people of largely European ancestry. 

It is worth noting that if a PRS had perfect accuracy at the population level, it would also necessarily have perfect accuracy at the individual level. But there aren’t any scores like that. It’s possible that combining various scores may increase the individual accuracy, but that hasn’t been demonstrated yet either. 

Look, genetics is and will continue to play a major role in healthcare. At the same time, sequencing entire genomes is a technology that is ripe for hype and thus misuse. Or even abuse. Fundamentally, this JAMA study reminds us that accuracy in a population and accuracy in an individual are not the same. But more deeply, it reminds us that just because a technology is new or cool or expensive doesn’t mean it will work in the clinic. 

 

Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I was really struggling to think of a good analogy to explain the glaring problem of polygenic risk scores (PRS) this week. But I think I have it now. Go with me on this.

An alien spaceship parks itself, Independence Day style, above a local office building. 

But unlike the aliens that gave such a hard time to Will Smith and Brent Spiner, these are benevolent, technologically superior guys. They shine a mysterious green light down on the building and then announce, maybe via telepathy, that 6% of the people in that building will have a heart attack in the next year.

 

They move on to the next building. “Five percent will have a heart attack in the next year.” And the next, 7%. And the next, 2%. 

Let’s assume the aliens are entirely accurate. What do you do with this information?

Most of us would suggest that you find out who was in the buildings with the higher percentages. You check their cholesterol levels, get them to exercise more, do some stress tests, and so on.

But that said, you’d still be spending a lot of money on a bunch of people who were not going to have heart attacks. So, a crack team of spies — in my mind, this is definitely led by a grizzled Ian McShane — infiltrate the alien ship, steal this predictive ray gun, and start pointing it, not at buildings but at people. 

In this scenario, one person could have a 10% chance of having a heart attack in the next year. Another person has a 50% chance. The aliens, seeing this, leave us one final message before flying into the great beyond: “No, you guys are doing it wrong.”

This week: The people and companies using an advanced predictive technology, PRS , wrong — and a study that shows just how problematic this is.

We all know that genes play a significant role in our health outcomes. Some diseases (Huntington disease, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, hemochromatosis, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, for example) are entirely driven by genetic mutations.

The vast majority of chronic diseases we face are not driven by genetics, but they may be enhanced by genetics. Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a prime example. There are clearly environmental risk factors, like smoking, that dramatically increase risk. But there are also genetic underpinnings; about half the risk for CHD comes from genetic variation, according to one study.

But in the case of those common diseases, it’s not one gene that leads to increased risk; it’s the aggregate effect of multiple risk genes, each contributing a small amount of risk to the final total. 

The promise of PRS was based on this fact. Take the genome of an individual, identify all the risk genes, and integrate them into some final number that represents your genetic risk of developing CHD.

The way you derive a PRS is take a big group of people and sequence their genomes. Then, you see who develops the disease of interest — in this case, CHD. If the people who develop CHD are more likely to have a particular mutation, that mutation goes in the risk score. Risk scores can integrate tens, hundreds, even thousands of individual mutations to create that final score.

There are literally dozens of PRS for CHD. And there are companies that will calculate yours right now for a reasonable fee.

The accuracy of these scores is assessed at the population level. It’s the alien ray gun thing. Researchers apply the PRS to a big group of people and say 20% of them should develop CHD. If indeed 20% develop CHD, they say the score is accurate. And that’s true.

But what happens next is the problem. Companies and even doctors have been marketing PRS to individuals. And honestly, it sounds amazing. “We’ll use sophisticated techniques to analyze your genetic code and integrate the information to give you your personal risk for CHD.” Or dementia. Or other diseases. A lot of people would want to know this information. 

It turns out, though, that this is where the system breaks down. And it is nicely illustrated by this study, appearing November 16 in JAMA.

The authors wanted to see how PRS, which are developed to predict disease in a group of people, work when applied to an individual.

They identified 48 previously published PRS for CHD. They applied those scores to more than 170,000 individuals across multiple genetic databases. And, by and large, the scores worked as advertised, at least across the entire group. The weighted accuracy of all 48 scores was around 78%. They aren’t perfect, of course. We wouldn’t expect them to be, since CHD is not entirely driven by genetics. But 78% accurate isn’t too bad.

But that accuracy is at the population level. At the level of the office building. At the individual level, it was a vastly different story.

This is best illustrated by this plot, which shows the score from 48 different PRS for CHD within the same person. A note here: It is arranged by the publication date of the risk score, but these were all assessed on a single blood sample at a single point in time in this study participant.

 

The individual scores are all over the map. Using one risk score gives an individual a risk that is near the 99th percentile — a ticking time bomb of CHD. Another score indicates a level of risk at the very bottom of the spectrum — highly reassuring. A bunch of scores fall somewhere in between. In other words, as a doctor, the risk I will discuss with this patient is more strongly determined by which PRS I happen to choose than by his actual genetic risk, whatever that is.

This may seem counterintuitive. All these risk scores were similarly accurate within a population; how can they all give different results to an individual? The answer is simpler than you may think. As long as a given score makes one extra good prediction for each extra bad prediction, its accuracy is not changed. 

Let’s imagine we have a population of 40 people.

 

Risk score model 1 correctly classified 30 of them for 75% accuracy. Great.

 

Risk score model 2 also correctly classified 30 of our 40 individuals, for 75% accuracy. It’s just a different 30.

 

Risk score model 3 also correctly classified 30 of 40, but another different 30.

I’ve colored this to show you all the different overlaps. What you can see is that although each score has similar accuracy, the individual people have a bunch of different colors, indicating that some scores worked for them and some didn’t. That’s a real problem. 

This has not stopped companies from advertising PRS for all sorts of diseases. Companies are even using PRS to decide which fetuses to implant during IVF therapy, which is a particularly egregiously wrong use of this technology that I have written about before.

How do you fix this? Our aliens tried to warn us. This is not how you are supposed to use this ray gun. You are supposed to use it to identify groups of people at higher risk to direct more resources to that group. That’s really all you can do.

It’s also possible that we need to match the risk score to the individual in a better way. This is likely driven by the fact that risk scores tend to work best in the populations in which they were developed, and many of them were developed in people of largely European ancestry. 

It is worth noting that if a PRS had perfect accuracy at the population level, it would also necessarily have perfect accuracy at the individual level. But there aren’t any scores like that. It’s possible that combining various scores may increase the individual accuracy, but that hasn’t been demonstrated yet either. 

Look, genetics is and will continue to play a major role in healthcare. At the same time, sequencing entire genomes is a technology that is ripe for hype and thus misuse. Or even abuse. Fundamentally, this JAMA study reminds us that accuracy in a population and accuracy in an individual are not the same. But more deeply, it reminds us that just because a technology is new or cool or expensive doesn’t mean it will work in the clinic. 

 

Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I was really struggling to think of a good analogy to explain the glaring problem of polygenic risk scores (PRS) this week. But I think I have it now. Go with me on this.

An alien spaceship parks itself, Independence Day style, above a local office building. 

But unlike the aliens that gave such a hard time to Will Smith and Brent Spiner, these are benevolent, technologically superior guys. They shine a mysterious green light down on the building and then announce, maybe via telepathy, that 6% of the people in that building will have a heart attack in the next year.

 

They move on to the next building. “Five percent will have a heart attack in the next year.” And the next, 7%. And the next, 2%. 

Let’s assume the aliens are entirely accurate. What do you do with this information?

Most of us would suggest that you find out who was in the buildings with the higher percentages. You check their cholesterol levels, get them to exercise more, do some stress tests, and so on.

But that said, you’d still be spending a lot of money on a bunch of people who were not going to have heart attacks. So, a crack team of spies — in my mind, this is definitely led by a grizzled Ian McShane — infiltrate the alien ship, steal this predictive ray gun, and start pointing it, not at buildings but at people. 

In this scenario, one person could have a 10% chance of having a heart attack in the next year. Another person has a 50% chance. The aliens, seeing this, leave us one final message before flying into the great beyond: “No, you guys are doing it wrong.”

This week: The people and companies using an advanced predictive technology, PRS , wrong — and a study that shows just how problematic this is.

We all know that genes play a significant role in our health outcomes. Some diseases (Huntington disease, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, hemochromatosis, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, for example) are entirely driven by genetic mutations.

The vast majority of chronic diseases we face are not driven by genetics, but they may be enhanced by genetics. Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a prime example. There are clearly environmental risk factors, like smoking, that dramatically increase risk. But there are also genetic underpinnings; about half the risk for CHD comes from genetic variation, according to one study.

But in the case of those common diseases, it’s not one gene that leads to increased risk; it’s the aggregate effect of multiple risk genes, each contributing a small amount of risk to the final total. 

The promise of PRS was based on this fact. Take the genome of an individual, identify all the risk genes, and integrate them into some final number that represents your genetic risk of developing CHD.

The way you derive a PRS is take a big group of people and sequence their genomes. Then, you see who develops the disease of interest — in this case, CHD. If the people who develop CHD are more likely to have a particular mutation, that mutation goes in the risk score. Risk scores can integrate tens, hundreds, even thousands of individual mutations to create that final score.

There are literally dozens of PRS for CHD. And there are companies that will calculate yours right now for a reasonable fee.

The accuracy of these scores is assessed at the population level. It’s the alien ray gun thing. Researchers apply the PRS to a big group of people and say 20% of them should develop CHD. If indeed 20% develop CHD, they say the score is accurate. And that’s true.

But what happens next is the problem. Companies and even doctors have been marketing PRS to individuals. And honestly, it sounds amazing. “We’ll use sophisticated techniques to analyze your genetic code and integrate the information to give you your personal risk for CHD.” Or dementia. Or other diseases. A lot of people would want to know this information. 

It turns out, though, that this is where the system breaks down. And it is nicely illustrated by this study, appearing November 16 in JAMA.

The authors wanted to see how PRS, which are developed to predict disease in a group of people, work when applied to an individual.

They identified 48 previously published PRS for CHD. They applied those scores to more than 170,000 individuals across multiple genetic databases. And, by and large, the scores worked as advertised, at least across the entire group. The weighted accuracy of all 48 scores was around 78%. They aren’t perfect, of course. We wouldn’t expect them to be, since CHD is not entirely driven by genetics. But 78% accurate isn’t too bad.

But that accuracy is at the population level. At the level of the office building. At the individual level, it was a vastly different story.

This is best illustrated by this plot, which shows the score from 48 different PRS for CHD within the same person. A note here: It is arranged by the publication date of the risk score, but these were all assessed on a single blood sample at a single point in time in this study participant.

 

The individual scores are all over the map. Using one risk score gives an individual a risk that is near the 99th percentile — a ticking time bomb of CHD. Another score indicates a level of risk at the very bottom of the spectrum — highly reassuring. A bunch of scores fall somewhere in between. In other words, as a doctor, the risk I will discuss with this patient is more strongly determined by which PRS I happen to choose than by his actual genetic risk, whatever that is.

This may seem counterintuitive. All these risk scores were similarly accurate within a population; how can they all give different results to an individual? The answer is simpler than you may think. As long as a given score makes one extra good prediction for each extra bad prediction, its accuracy is not changed. 

Let’s imagine we have a population of 40 people.

 

Risk score model 1 correctly classified 30 of them for 75% accuracy. Great.

 

Risk score model 2 also correctly classified 30 of our 40 individuals, for 75% accuracy. It’s just a different 30.

 

Risk score model 3 also correctly classified 30 of 40, but another different 30.

I’ve colored this to show you all the different overlaps. What you can see is that although each score has similar accuracy, the individual people have a bunch of different colors, indicating that some scores worked for them and some didn’t. That’s a real problem. 

This has not stopped companies from advertising PRS for all sorts of diseases. Companies are even using PRS to decide which fetuses to implant during IVF therapy, which is a particularly egregiously wrong use of this technology that I have written about before.

How do you fix this? Our aliens tried to warn us. This is not how you are supposed to use this ray gun. You are supposed to use it to identify groups of people at higher risk to direct more resources to that group. That’s really all you can do.

It’s also possible that we need to match the risk score to the individual in a better way. This is likely driven by the fact that risk scores tend to work best in the populations in which they were developed, and many of them were developed in people of largely European ancestry. 

It is worth noting that if a PRS had perfect accuracy at the population level, it would also necessarily have perfect accuracy at the individual level. But there aren’t any scores like that. It’s possible that combining various scores may increase the individual accuracy, but that hasn’t been demonstrated yet either. 

Look, genetics is and will continue to play a major role in healthcare. At the same time, sequencing entire genomes is a technology that is ripe for hype and thus misuse. Or even abuse. Fundamentally, this JAMA study reminds us that accuracy in a population and accuracy in an individual are not the same. But more deeply, it reminds us that just because a technology is new or cool or expensive doesn’t mean it will work in the clinic. 

 

Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Colchicine does not protect against major cardiovascular adverse events after an acute myocardial infarction, according to a multinational placebo-controlled trial of more than 7000 patients.

The CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) study, called “the largest trial ever of colchicine in acute MI,” showed no hint of benefit in an adverse event curve for colchicine relative to placebo over 5 years, which suggests that the role of this drug after myocardial infarction (MI) “is uncertain,” Sanjit Jolly, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences and a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reported at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2024.

For the primary composite outcome — cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization — the event curves in the colchicine and placebo groups remained essentially superimposed over 5 years of follow-up, with only a slight separation after 4 years. The hazard ratio for the primary endpoint showed a 1% difference in favor of colchicine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .93).

There were no meaningful differences in any of the individual endpoint components; all 95% CIs straddled the line of unity. Rates of cardiovascular death (3.3% vs 3.2%) and stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%) were numerically higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. Rates of MI (2.9% vs 3.1%) and ischemia-driven revascularization (4.6% vs 4.7%) were numerically lower in the colchicine group.

 

No Difference

No adverse outcomes, including all-cause death (4.6% vs 5.1%), approached significance, with the exception of noncardiovascular death (13.0% vs 1.9%). For this outcome, the 95% CI stopped just short of the line of unity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99).

Rates of adverse events (31.9% vs 31.7%; P = .86), serious adverse events (6.7% vs 7.4%; P = .22), and serious infections (2.5% vs 2.9%; P = .85) were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, but diarrhea, a known side effect of colchicine, was higher in the colchicine group (10.2% vs 6.6%; P < .001).

Given these results, a panelist questioned the use of the word “uncertain” to describe the findings during the late-breaker session in which these results were presented.

“I think you are selling yourself short,” said J. Dawn Abbott, MD, director of the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Training Program at the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Based on the size and conduct of this trial, she called the results “definitive” and suggested that the guidelines should be adjusted.

 

The OASIS 9 Trial

In OASIS 9, 3528 patients were randomized to colchicine, and 3534 were randomized to placebo. A second randomization in both groups was to spironolactone or placebo; these results will be presented at the upcoming American Heart Association (AHA) 2024 meeting. Both analyses will be published in The New England Journal of Medicine at that time, Jolly reported.

The study involved 104 sites in Australia, Egypt, Europe, Nepal, and North America. Follow-up in both groups exceeded 99%. Most patients had an ST-elevation MI (STEMI), but about 5% of those enrolled had a non-STEMI. Less than 10% of patients had experienced a previous MI.

Less than 5% of patients were discharged on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 therapy, and more than 95% were discharged on aspirin and a statin. Nearly 80% were discharged on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and most patients received an anticoagulant. More than 95% of patients were implanted with a drug-eluting stent.

At month 3, C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. C-reactive protein is a biomarker for the anti-inflammatory effect that is considered to be colchicine’s primary mechanism of action. An anti-inflammatory effect has been cited as the probable explanation for the positive results shown in the COLCOT and LODOCO2 trials, published in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

In COLCOT, which randomized 4745 patients who experienced an acute MI in the previous 30 days, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in a composite major cardiovascular adverse events endpoint relative to placebo (HR, 0.77; P = .02). In LODOCO2, which randomized 5522 patients with chronic coronary disease, colchicine was associated with a 31% reduction in an adverse event composite endpoint (HR, 0.68; P < .0001).

However, two more recent trials — CONVINCE and CHANCE-3 — showed no difference between colchicine and placebo for the endpoint of recurrent stroke at 90 days. CONVINCE, with approximately 3000 patients, was relatively small, whereas CHANCE-3 randomized more than 8000 patients and showed no effect on the risk for stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16).

 

New Data Challenge Guidelines

Of these trials, COLCOT was the most similar to OASIS 9, according to Jolly. Among the differences, OASIS 9 was initiated earlier and was larger than the other trials, so it had more power to address the study question.

Given the absence of benefit, Jolly indicated that OASIS 9 might disrupt both the joint American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines, which gave colchicine a class 2b recommendation in 2023, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which gave colchicine a 2a recommendation.

“This is a big deal for me,” said Ajay J. Kirtane, director of the Interventional Cardiovascular Care program at Columbia University in New York City. As someone who is now using colchicine routinely, these data have changed his opinion.

The previous data supporting the use of colchicine “were just so-so,” he explained. “Now I have a good rationale” for foregoing the routine use of this therapy.

Jolly said that he had put his own father on colchicine after an acute MI on the basis of the guidelines, but immediately took him off this therapy when the data from OASIS 9 were unblinded.

“The only signal from this trial was an increased risk of diarrhea,” Jolly said. The results, at the very least, suggest that colchicine “is not for everyone” after an acute MI, although he emphasized that these results do not rule out the potential for benefit from anti-inflammatory therapy. Ongoing trials, including one targeting interleukin 6, a cytokine associated with inflammation, remain of interest, he added.

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

WASHINGTON — Colchicine does not protect against major cardiovascular adverse events after an acute myocardial infarction, according to a multinational placebo-controlled trial of more than 7000 patients.

The CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) study, called “the largest trial ever of colchicine in acute MI,” showed no hint of benefit in an adverse event curve for colchicine relative to placebo over 5 years, which suggests that the role of this drug after myocardial infarction (MI) “is uncertain,” Sanjit Jolly, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences and a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reported at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2024.

For the primary composite outcome — cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization — the event curves in the colchicine and placebo groups remained essentially superimposed over 5 years of follow-up, with only a slight separation after 4 years. The hazard ratio for the primary endpoint showed a 1% difference in favor of colchicine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .93).

There were no meaningful differences in any of the individual endpoint components; all 95% CIs straddled the line of unity. Rates of cardiovascular death (3.3% vs 3.2%) and stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%) were numerically higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. Rates of MI (2.9% vs 3.1%) and ischemia-driven revascularization (4.6% vs 4.7%) were numerically lower in the colchicine group.

 

No Difference

No adverse outcomes, including all-cause death (4.6% vs 5.1%), approached significance, with the exception of noncardiovascular death (13.0% vs 1.9%). For this outcome, the 95% CI stopped just short of the line of unity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99).

Rates of adverse events (31.9% vs 31.7%; P = .86), serious adverse events (6.7% vs 7.4%; P = .22), and serious infections (2.5% vs 2.9%; P = .85) were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, but diarrhea, a known side effect of colchicine, was higher in the colchicine group (10.2% vs 6.6%; P < .001).

Given these results, a panelist questioned the use of the word “uncertain” to describe the findings during the late-breaker session in which these results were presented.

“I think you are selling yourself short,” said J. Dawn Abbott, MD, director of the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Training Program at the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Based on the size and conduct of this trial, she called the results “definitive” and suggested that the guidelines should be adjusted.

 

The OASIS 9 Trial

In OASIS 9, 3528 patients were randomized to colchicine, and 3534 were randomized to placebo. A second randomization in both groups was to spironolactone or placebo; these results will be presented at the upcoming American Heart Association (AHA) 2024 meeting. Both analyses will be published in The New England Journal of Medicine at that time, Jolly reported.

The study involved 104 sites in Australia, Egypt, Europe, Nepal, and North America. Follow-up in both groups exceeded 99%. Most patients had an ST-elevation MI (STEMI), but about 5% of those enrolled had a non-STEMI. Less than 10% of patients had experienced a previous MI.

Less than 5% of patients were discharged on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 therapy, and more than 95% were discharged on aspirin and a statin. Nearly 80% were discharged on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and most patients received an anticoagulant. More than 95% of patients were implanted with a drug-eluting stent.

At month 3, C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. C-reactive protein is a biomarker for the anti-inflammatory effect that is considered to be colchicine’s primary mechanism of action. An anti-inflammatory effect has been cited as the probable explanation for the positive results shown in the COLCOT and LODOCO2 trials, published in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

In COLCOT, which randomized 4745 patients who experienced an acute MI in the previous 30 days, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in a composite major cardiovascular adverse events endpoint relative to placebo (HR, 0.77; P = .02). In LODOCO2, which randomized 5522 patients with chronic coronary disease, colchicine was associated with a 31% reduction in an adverse event composite endpoint (HR, 0.68; P < .0001).

However, two more recent trials — CONVINCE and CHANCE-3 — showed no difference between colchicine and placebo for the endpoint of recurrent stroke at 90 days. CONVINCE, with approximately 3000 patients, was relatively small, whereas CHANCE-3 randomized more than 8000 patients and showed no effect on the risk for stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16).

 

New Data Challenge Guidelines

Of these trials, COLCOT was the most similar to OASIS 9, according to Jolly. Among the differences, OASIS 9 was initiated earlier and was larger than the other trials, so it had more power to address the study question.

Given the absence of benefit, Jolly indicated that OASIS 9 might disrupt both the joint American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines, which gave colchicine a class 2b recommendation in 2023, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which gave colchicine a 2a recommendation.

“This is a big deal for me,” said Ajay J. Kirtane, director of the Interventional Cardiovascular Care program at Columbia University in New York City. As someone who is now using colchicine routinely, these data have changed his opinion.

The previous data supporting the use of colchicine “were just so-so,” he explained. “Now I have a good rationale” for foregoing the routine use of this therapy.

Jolly said that he had put his own father on colchicine after an acute MI on the basis of the guidelines, but immediately took him off this therapy when the data from OASIS 9 were unblinded.

“The only signal from this trial was an increased risk of diarrhea,” Jolly said. The results, at the very least, suggest that colchicine “is not for everyone” after an acute MI, although he emphasized that these results do not rule out the potential for benefit from anti-inflammatory therapy. Ongoing trials, including one targeting interleukin 6, a cytokine associated with inflammation, remain of interest, he added.

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

WASHINGTON — Colchicine does not protect against major cardiovascular adverse events after an acute myocardial infarction, according to a multinational placebo-controlled trial of more than 7000 patients.

The CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) study, called “the largest trial ever of colchicine in acute MI,” showed no hint of benefit in an adverse event curve for colchicine relative to placebo over 5 years, which suggests that the role of this drug after myocardial infarction (MI) “is uncertain,” Sanjit Jolly, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences and a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reported at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2024.

For the primary composite outcome — cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization — the event curves in the colchicine and placebo groups remained essentially superimposed over 5 years of follow-up, with only a slight separation after 4 years. The hazard ratio for the primary endpoint showed a 1% difference in favor of colchicine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .93).

There were no meaningful differences in any of the individual endpoint components; all 95% CIs straddled the line of unity. Rates of cardiovascular death (3.3% vs 3.2%) and stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%) were numerically higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. Rates of MI (2.9% vs 3.1%) and ischemia-driven revascularization (4.6% vs 4.7%) were numerically lower in the colchicine group.

 

No Difference

No adverse outcomes, including all-cause death (4.6% vs 5.1%), approached significance, with the exception of noncardiovascular death (13.0% vs 1.9%). For this outcome, the 95% CI stopped just short of the line of unity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99).

Rates of adverse events (31.9% vs 31.7%; P = .86), serious adverse events (6.7% vs 7.4%; P = .22), and serious infections (2.5% vs 2.9%; P = .85) were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, but diarrhea, a known side effect of colchicine, was higher in the colchicine group (10.2% vs 6.6%; P < .001).

Given these results, a panelist questioned the use of the word “uncertain” to describe the findings during the late-breaker session in which these results were presented.

“I think you are selling yourself short,” said J. Dawn Abbott, MD, director of the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Training Program at the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Based on the size and conduct of this trial, she called the results “definitive” and suggested that the guidelines should be adjusted.

 

The OASIS 9 Trial

In OASIS 9, 3528 patients were randomized to colchicine, and 3534 were randomized to placebo. A second randomization in both groups was to spironolactone or placebo; these results will be presented at the upcoming American Heart Association (AHA) 2024 meeting. Both analyses will be published in The New England Journal of Medicine at that time, Jolly reported.

The study involved 104 sites in Australia, Egypt, Europe, Nepal, and North America. Follow-up in both groups exceeded 99%. Most patients had an ST-elevation MI (STEMI), but about 5% of those enrolled had a non-STEMI. Less than 10% of patients had experienced a previous MI.

Less than 5% of patients were discharged on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 therapy, and more than 95% were discharged on aspirin and a statin. Nearly 80% were discharged on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and most patients received an anticoagulant. More than 95% of patients were implanted with a drug-eluting stent.

At month 3, C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. C-reactive protein is a biomarker for the anti-inflammatory effect that is considered to be colchicine’s primary mechanism of action. An anti-inflammatory effect has been cited as the probable explanation for the positive results shown in the COLCOT and LODOCO2 trials, published in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

In COLCOT, which randomized 4745 patients who experienced an acute MI in the previous 30 days, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in a composite major cardiovascular adverse events endpoint relative to placebo (HR, 0.77; P = .02). In LODOCO2, which randomized 5522 patients with chronic coronary disease, colchicine was associated with a 31% reduction in an adverse event composite endpoint (HR, 0.68; P < .0001).

However, two more recent trials — CONVINCE and CHANCE-3 — showed no difference between colchicine and placebo for the endpoint of recurrent stroke at 90 days. CONVINCE, with approximately 3000 patients, was relatively small, whereas CHANCE-3 randomized more than 8000 patients and showed no effect on the risk for stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16).

 

New Data Challenge Guidelines

Of these trials, COLCOT was the most similar to OASIS 9, according to Jolly. Among the differences, OASIS 9 was initiated earlier and was larger than the other trials, so it had more power to address the study question.

Given the absence of benefit, Jolly indicated that OASIS 9 might disrupt both the joint American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines, which gave colchicine a class 2b recommendation in 2023, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which gave colchicine a 2a recommendation.

“This is a big deal for me,” said Ajay J. Kirtane, director of the Interventional Cardiovascular Care program at Columbia University in New York City. As someone who is now using colchicine routinely, these data have changed his opinion.

The previous data supporting the use of colchicine “were just so-so,” he explained. “Now I have a good rationale” for foregoing the routine use of this therapy.

Jolly said that he had put his own father on colchicine after an acute MI on the basis of the guidelines, but immediately took him off this therapy when the data from OASIS 9 were unblinded.

“The only signal from this trial was an increased risk of diarrhea,” Jolly said. The results, at the very least, suggest that colchicine “is not for everyone” after an acute MI, although he emphasized that these results do not rule out the potential for benefit from anti-inflammatory therapy. Ongoing trials, including one targeting interleukin 6, a cytokine associated with inflammation, remain of interest, he added.

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